Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Incapacitated Miners (Employment)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the increase in the number of miners who are compelled to leave the mines on being certified under the Silicosis and Pneumo-Koniosis Orders; and, as these men are available for other forms of work suitable to their condition, providing it is near their home, whether he will take steps to secure the establishment of suitable industries in the areas concerned.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am aware that there has been some increase. It is the policy of the Government that expansions of production should take place, as far as possible and where technical considerations allow, in areas where labour is available, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the areas to which he refers are not being overlooked.

Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, owing to the certifications under the new Order, there are likely to be hundreds of men certified as partially disabled in the West Wales area in the next few months?

Mr. Bevin: Yes. I shall have a chance of dealing with this special problem as soon as the Disablement Bill becomes law.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of collieries are refusing to take back men who are partially incapacitated, although they have jobs suitable for them? Will he deal with these people?

Mr. Bevin: We had a long Debate last week on the whole problem. I must wait for the Act before I can deal with it.

Transferred Clerical Workers (Rail Fares)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour whether as clerical workers directed to take up employment in Government establishments away from their homes are precluded by Civil Service regulations from receiving the concession of reduced rail fares for periodical visits to their home towns, and are, therefore, in a less favourable position than persons directed to take up manual employment in the same establishments, he will authorise for these clerical workers the reduced rail fare concession now extended to those directed into manual employment.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Persons transferred to temporary clerical employment in Government establishments, through local offices of my Ministry or the Women's Technical Services Register, are now eligible far cheap travel warrants to visit their homes on the same terms as transferred industrial workers. Permanent clerical workers in Government establishments come under Civil Service arrangements.

Mr. Brown: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the arrangements to which he refers do not cover the permanent clerical workers in the Civil Service? Why should they apply to one section, and not to another?

Mr. Bevin: I would ask the hon. Member to address any question dealing with the permanent Civil Service to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Wages Clerks

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether the necessary supply of competent wages clerks is available at Employment Exchanges to fill the demands of industry for these persons caused by the coming into force in April of the Wage-Earners' Income Tax Act.

Mr. Bevin: The work entailed by the new Income Tax scheme will be taken into account in dealing with applications for deferment of existing staff, and the Employment Exchanges will make efforts to supply additional clerical workers when this is necessary.

Colonel Greenwell: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the real anxiety which


is felt, particularly in the heavy industries, at the lack of suitable people to discharge these functions, especially where intricate piece-rates are involved?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I do appreciate that; and I am sure that the employers appreciate the anxiety of the Ministry of Labour to get the people required for the war.

Colonel Greenwell: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to deal with this problem at an early date?

Mr. Bevin: I will do my best, but man-power is very much stretched at present and I cannot give any pledge.

Alien Refugees

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that numbers of refugees from Nazi oppression were admitted to this country for the purpose of undertaking domestic employment, what steps are taken to see that they are engaged in this work or on work of greater national importance.

Mr. Bevin: These persons are dealt with by my Department in respect of their employment in the same way as British subjects, so far as this is practicable. Under the Aliens (Employment) Order, 1939, they require my assent to any new employment which they enter. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a leaflet issued by my Department, which explains the obligations of Allied and foreign nationals in this country.

Engineering Apprentices (Work in Coalmines)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that apprentices employed in the engineering and kindred trades are apprehensive lest, if directed to work in coalmines, they will forfeit some of their rights under the system governing their craft, one of which would be to postpone the completion of their apprenticeship by the period of employment in the mines; and whether he can do anything to remove this apprehension.

Mr. Bevin: The arrangements to be made in cases of interrupted apprenticeship are under consideration, in consultation with the industries concerned, and a final conclusion has not yet been reached.

The paint raised by my hon. Friend is appreciated, and will not be overlooked.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men are so apprehensive that they sent a deputation to the House of Commons?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, but not one in 20 of those who came here had been called up or had been in the ballot.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not possible that some of these boys might be called up by my right hon. Friend's Department?

Coalmining (Trainees)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Labour the exact number of boys recruited by ballot under his recent scheme now under training for the mines, and their allocation by counties.

Mr. Bevin: I am having this information collected, and will send it to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (INDIAN CITIZEN)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. Suresh Vaidya, an Indian citizen, resident in this country and employed as a journalist, having had his appeal as a conscientious objector rejected by the tribunals, is now being court-martialled for refusal to engage in military service; and whether, having regard to the fact that India's participation in the war has been up to now on a voluntary basis, he will take steps to end proceedings to compel this man's service.

Mr. Bevin: According to my information, Mr. Vaidya has been resident in this country since 1932. He is, therefore, liable to be called up in accordance with the provisions of the National Service Acts. An enlistment notice was served on him, and I have no power to intervene.

Mr. Maxton: Has it been done with the knowledge and approval of the India Office?

Mr. Bevin: I could not answer that question offhand, but I am responsible for calling up people, and if people come within the Act I call them up, without distinction or discrimination.

Mr. Rhys Davies: As this is a very exceptional case, will my right hon. Friend look into it?

Mr. Bevin: No, it has gone from my hands. An enlistment notice has been issued, in accordance with the law, and I cannot intervene.

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps the Minister of Labour cannot intervene in a routine way, but he is a Member of the War Cabinet; and will he tell us whether it is the considered opinion of the Cabinet that Indian people, whose country is not under conscription at the moment, should be forced into military service, although the Secretary of State for India goes around boasting that India's contribution to the war is on a purely voluntary basis?

Mr. Bevin: If the man has resided in this country for the specified period, he comes under the Act here. I have not interfered with anybody living in India.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (MAN-POWER)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Labour whether any assessment has been formed by his Department of the manpower requirements of the cotton industry after the war.

Mr. Bevin: I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is discussing post-war problems with the industry, but, until these discussions are further advanced, it would be premature to attempt to make an estimate of the kind referred to in the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED SERVICE-MEN (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INSTITUTIONS)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that numbers of discharged Service-men in this war are wandering from workhouse to workhouse in search of food and shelter; that 192 of such admissions have been notified to the Ministry of Health since October last; and will he take steps, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, to check up on these cases to see whether they are suitable for work and, if not, assist them by supplying them with information as to making application for war pension.

Mr. Bevin: I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health that the number of casuals admitted to public assistance institutions in the north of England who claimed to have been discharged from His Majesty's Forces or the Merchant Navy during the present war is, approximately, as stated by my hon. Friend. In very few cases, however, were they in possession of discharge papers. There is already an arrangement under which masters of institutions refer men who appear to be suitable for employment to my local offices on the day during which they are detained, and every facility to obtain employment or training is then given to them. It is not normally practicable for my officers to visit the institutions, but I am arranging with my right hon. and learned Friend that my officers shall carry out a special investigation, with a view to finding out to what extent, and for what reasons, these men are on the roads. I am suggesting to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions that his officers might take part in this investigation.

Mr. Edwards: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, might I ask whether he realises that many of these men who are walking from workhouse to workhouse are doing it solely because of dispiritedness resulting from their war experience; and that it is absolutely essential that the Departments concerned should take men in hand as quickly as possible after their discharge from the Forces?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, I will go into the matter with my two right hon. Friends and try to stop it. But no Minister of Labour can really curb the nomadic instincts of some of these people.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the question of accommodation for these casuals be included in the inquiry? In some workhouses the masters have no accommodation for them and no one to look after them.

Mr. Bevin: I think the inquiry will cover everything.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF OPENING)

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to


the position arising in various parts of the country by the arbitrary action of licensees in closing, periodically, their licensed premises as they think fit; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.

Mr. Kendall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the shortage of supplies in licensed houses due to the influx of Armed Forces and other reasons, he will take steps to modify the licensing laws so as to ensure that it is not necessary, for a licensee who has nothing to sell, to keep open his premises, thereby wasting electricity and fuel; and that such temporary and periodical closing, owing to lack of supplies, will not result in the loss of his licence.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The issue is not whether a licensee should be required to keep open when he has nothing to sell, but whether, when his supplies are only sufficient to enable him to serve customers for limited periods, he shall so arrange the hours of opening as to meet the needs and convenience of the public. At Grantham, for example, I understand that the local Association of Licensed Victuallers had agreed that, when hours of opening were curtailed, they would, at any rate, keep open from 8 to 10 each evening, when many people, including many soldiers stationed in the neighbourhood, are in need of a place of refreshment and social life, and would also keep open, if possible, for two hours in the middle of each day. Some licensees, however, had failed to comply with this arrangement, and preferred to keep open for seven or eight hours on certain days and to close altogether on other days. This arrangement may suit the convenience of the licensees themselves, but it would be unfair to those licensees, who are consulting the public interest rather than their own convenience, if no action were taken to induce the other licensees to come into line. While there is no specific requirement in the law that a licence-holder shall keep his bar open during the whole of the permitted hours, it is right that, when he proposes to close his premises during part of the usual hours, he should ascertain beforehand whether there would be any objection on the part of the

licensing justices and the police. Otherwise, he exposes himself to such risk as there may be of objection being taken to the continuance of his licence.

Mr. W. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the licence certifies that the licensee must keep the premises open a certain number of hours each day?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say so, but I doubt it. The law does not require that the premises shall keep open for all the permitted hours.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS' DISEASES

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of applications made for certification under the Pneumo-koniosis and Silicosis Orders for the year ended 31st December, 1943; the number certified as partially disabled and totally disabled; and give the number for Lancashire and Cheshire separately in each class.

Mr. H. Morrison: The number of applications from coal miners dealt with by the Medical Board under the schemes of compensation and benefit for these diseases was 2,645, of which 31 were from Lancashire and Cheshire. The number certified to be totally disabled or suspended on account of the disease was 1,281 including 9 in Lancashire and Cheshire.

Mr. Brown: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask if he will not collaborate with the Ministry of Fuel and Power with the object in view of preventing the ravages of these diseases making great inroads into the man-power in the mines?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Member that we will do all we can in that direction.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a number of coalminers have been waiting for some time for examination by the medical board under the Pneumo-koniosis Order; and if he will take steps to expedite the examination of these men by the board.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware that, owing to the large increase in the number of applications to the medical board from


South Wales miners, examinations have been delayed. As I explained in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) on the 17th December last, the strength of the medical board in South Wales has been doubled, and further assistance is being given so far as is practicable. I fully recognise the desirability of doing everything possible to cope with the increased work, but my hon. Friend will also recognise that the claims on the medical profession at the present time make it very difficult to secure the services of qualified men who can devote time to this kind of work, and some delay is unavoidable. As the result of discussions with representatives of the South Wales Miners' Federation last week, I hope that, in future, priority of application will be given to cases where the disease is advanced and the workman is incapacitated for work.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOUBLE SUMMER TIME

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now make a statement on the question of double summer time for this year.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir, but I hope to be in a position to do so very shortly.

Major Lyons: Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer the question on a day during the next Series of Sittings?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be sure.

Mr. Mathers: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the fact that, not only in agricultural circles, but in certain industrial circles, there is an objection to double summer time?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask is the Minister aware that farmers object to double summer time, and whether, before coming to a final decision, he will consult the Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Morrison: The Minister of Agriculture is a constant consultant of mine on this subject, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

if he will state the total number of children attending our elementary schools, boys and girls respectively; how many of them are employed, respectively, out of school hours; and whether all the education authorities have now adopted by-laws regulating such employment.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education that about 4,500,000 children were attending public elementary schools last October. During the war—owing to the necessity of cutting down clerical work—returns of the number of school children employed have not been collected, and the latest figures available are for 1937, when about 70,000 boys and 10,000 girls were employed. By-laws regulating the employment of children have been made by 313 out of the 316 local authorities empowered to make by-laws. The general provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939, apply in all areas.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it possible for the Minister to issue a reminder to the small number of local authorities who have not got these by-laws to induce them to take steps to do so, and has there been an increase in the number of children employed during the war?

Mr. Morrison: I could not give the answer to the last part of the question without notice. With regard to the local authorities, I think it is regrettable that they have not made the by-laws, but I will do all I can in the matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask the Minister whether his Department has any knowledge whether all the local authorities which have the by-laws are really putting them into force?

Mr. Morrison: I think that, generally speaking, they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN POLICE

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of women police in view of the small number now in the force and the urgent need for an increase under war conditions.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am anxious to encourage the employment of policewomen in all areas where there is a need for them, and my Department is doing everything it can with a view to increasing their numbers. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the problem presents considerable difficulties in present circumstances, but I am not without hope that I shall be able to find some scheme for increasing temporarily at any rate the number of women police for employment in areas where special problems exist.

Mr. Mander: Is the Minister not aware that there are still a number of areas where no women police are employed at all, or other than a very small number, and will he use his great persuasive powers to increase them?

Mr. Morrison: The answer to both questions is in the affirmative.

Miss Rathbone: Cannot something stronger than persuasion be used?

Mr. Morrison: It would be very nice if I could employ magic, but I have not reached those heights yet.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister say what is the number of women police employed throughout the country?

Mr. Morrison: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTY POLICE APPOINTMENTS (JUSTICES' APPROVAL)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of counties in which the approval of police appointments is still obtained from the justices in petty sessions.

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that this is the general practice, but I have no detailed information as to the procedure followed in every individual county police force.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is a tendency on the part of some chief constables to ignore these justices in the appointment of policemen and will the right hon. Gentleman look into that?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member has any particular cases, I certainly will look into them. This legal provision comes from the year 1839, and I think it is a

little bit out of date, but still it is the law. I will take notice of any cases to which the hon. Member cares to draw my attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (AGREED SYLLABUSES)

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider the advisability of publishing, for the information of hon. Members, examples of the agreed syllabus for religious education.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The existing examples of agreed syllabuses of religious instruction are issued by local education authorities and are not submitted to the Board who, under the present law, do not inspect or supervise religious instruction. I am afraid, therefore, that I am unable to do as the hon. Member suggests, but I will obtain copies of some of the existing syllabuses and place them in the Library for the information of hon. Members.

Mr. Mander: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he will consider the possibility of publishing some of them in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. Butler: They are already available in printed form, and I suggest that if I place copies in the Library, hon. Members may obtain copies of their own agreed syllabus from their own areas.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: In view of the rather wild statements sometimes appearing in print about this, would it not be in the interest of the public to make a more general publication?

Mr. Butler: The more the agreed syllabuses are known, the more widely they will be approved, and any steps which I can take I will do.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Statistics

Mr. J. J. Lawson: asked the Minister of Health how many houses are being built at present in England and Wales; and in which area such houses are being erected.

The Minister of Health (Mr. H. Willink): Some 2,470 houses, mainly for


agricultural workers, are under construction in schemes with which my Department is concerned. As the list of areas is rather long, I will, with permission, send my hon. Friend a statement.

Post-War Requirements

Sir William Wayland: asked the Minister of Health if, considering 3,500,000 houses were built from 1919 to September, 1939, he will give the basis on which it is estimated that 4,000,000 more houses are now required, excluding houses damaged by enemy action but capable of repairs, as the total of 7,500,000 new houses represents a newly-built house for every family of six people in Great Britain since the end of the last war.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 30th November last to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) of which I am sending him a copy.

Rent Restrictions Committee

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take immediate steps to end the anomalies that have arisen owing to the war in the incidence of the present rent laws on house owners and bring the present situation to an end.

Mr. Willink: I have received representations that the Rent Restrictions Acts create anomalies and react unfairly on owners of house property. I am, however, satisfied that the fullest inquiry into the position must precede any attempt to amend existing legislation and, as my hon. Friend knows, an Inter-Departmental Committee is now actively carrying out a thorough investigation.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that a learned judge has said that he finds it difficult to thread his way through the quagmire of legislation, and that many small investors are being subjected to great loss and difficulty, will my right hon. and learned Friend speed up the inquiry and come to a decision as soon as possible, because thousands of people are affected?

Mr. Willink: It is exactly for these reasons and others that the Committee has been appointed. It is working very hard; it has already met four times and is meeting again next week.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive the Report of the Rent Restrictions Committee.

Mr. Willink: I am unable to say when the Committee will present its Report, but in view of the very wide scope of its terms of reference, it is unlikely that its inquiries can be concluded in the near future.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we are now getting into a position in which tenants of small properties are living in much better financial circumstances than the owners of those properties, and will he do his utmost to expedite the report of the Rent Restrictions Committee so that public attention can be directed to the difficulties that small property owners are experiencing due to the rising cost of living?

Mr. Willink: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (POST-WAR LABOUR SUPPLY)

Mr. J. J. Lawson: asked the Minister of Health if he has now completed his arrangements with the local authorities of England and Wales for meeting arrears of work and maintenance due to the war; and whether plans are ready for the transference of labour from war duties as soon as such workers are available.

Mr. Willink: I am in communication with local authorities in connection with post-war work on those of their major services, such as housing, water-supply and sewerage, with which I am concerned, and I am sending my hon. Friend copies of Circulars which I have recently addressed to them. The distribution of available labour and materials between new works and arrears of maintenance, and also between the needs of particular services, in the period immediately after the war involves questions of priorities on which I am unable to make any definite statement at the present time; but I can assure my hon. Friend that the needs of local authorities in respect of their various services are present to my mind and I shall see that full consideration is given to them as soon as workers are


available. If he has any particular points in mind, perhaps he will communicate with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTH CERTIFICATES

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will instruct the Registrar General to issue certificates containing a man's or woman's date of birth only and nothing else.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies I gave to him and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington South (Sir W. Davison) on 19th and 27th January. I have no power to give instructions such as he has in mind.

Commander Locker-Lawson: Arising out of that reply, will the Minister receive a deputation on this issue, so that we may state clearly what our views are and get his co-operation?

Mr. Willink: I have already said I shall be happy to consider such a proposition.

Miss Rathbone: Does the Minister mean that legislation is required, or that it lies in the power of some other Department to change the form?

Mr. Willink: I mean that legislation would be required.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL CAMPS

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Health, whether the camps which in October, 1939, were then in process of construction have all been completed; and what present use is being made of each one of them.

Mr. Willink: The camps, 31 in number, were completed by 1940. One of these is occupied by an evacuated orphanage, the others, with one exception, are occupied by local education authorities of vulnerable areas for the accommodation of school children together with the necessary teachers and staff.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there has been an increasing attendance during the last two years at these camps, and will he, together with the President of the Board of Education, have a further look into this matter?

Mr. Willink: I will certainly examine that, but it hardly arises on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of health if he will consider making an order whereby the date of birth shall be noted on the National Identity Card.

Mr. Willink: If as I infer, my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the entry upon each Identity Card of a date of birth which will afford proof of age in substitution for the existing birth certificate arrangements, his object would not be realised by the entry of dates of birth as stated by their holders either at the time of endorsement or on previous occasions. For that purpose the entry upon the Identity Card would need to be based upon the Birth Register; and some reorganisation of a permanent character would be necessary. In this connection, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of 27th January to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir W. Davison), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir T. Moore: I think my right hon. and learned Friend has misunderstood my purpose. Is he not aware that this seems the only practical method by which police and welfare workers can determine the age of young girls and thereby save them from a lot of mental and physical anxiety?

Mr. Willink: It is not as easy as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. As I indicated by my answer, it would involve the tying up of the birth registration and the national registration systems.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is the Minister aware that a great many people, and particularly women, object to being compelled to disclose their age to anyone likely to see their identity card?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Penicillin (Small-Scale Production)

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the production and use of home-made penicillin by those who have concentrated upon the matter; and whether he will consider co-operating with those responsible


for intimating their case-notes on the topic so as to increase the availability of this aid which is yet in short supply.

Mr. Willink: I am aware that some research workers have published notes on so-called home-made penicillin. I appreciate the importance of this work, but I am advised that the small-scale production of this substance is attended by special difficulties of purification and standardisation. I should certainly be glad to receive all information relative to the production and application of penicillin.

Major Lyons: Will my right hon. and learned Friend do what he can in his Department to speed up the manufacture of this commodity in all ways possible and prevent mass-scale production getting into monopolistic hands?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Whose property is penicillin?

Mr. Levy: If competent manufacturers capable of manufacturing penicillin apply for licences to produce it, will these licences be granted?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Industrialisation

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Health in what directions the extension of industrialisation in the war and the increase of employment has produced perceptible effects on public health.

Mr. Willink: The public health in war-time is affected, whether for good or ill, by a large number of factors and it has not been possible to draw any firm conclusions as to the exact effect of the two factors mentioned by my hon. Friend. I would refer him to Part I of the latest report of my Department, which was presented to Parliament in September last.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps he proposes to take to see that the temporary homes to be built under the Government's two year plan are laid out in accordance with the most advanced principles of town planning and not allowed to add to the existing problems by building more vast housing estates on the outskirts of large cities.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): My Ministry will be consulted on layout in every case. I would also remind the hon. and gallant Member that, as stated by my noble Friend the Minister of Works, all temporary houses under the plan referred to will be publicly owned and removed at the end of a limited period.

Mr. Lawson: Can we have an assurance from the Minister that these temporary houses will not be laid out so that we have millions of acres of sprawling suburbs, and is he aware that we have just revised our ideas on density zoning?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that will be our idea.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if, in view of the Government's plans on post-war housing, he will make known the Government's views on the location of post-war industry and the question of the ownership of land, compensation and betterment; and whether he is aware that indecision on these subjects will frustrate the plans of the Minister of Works.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware of the importance of these questions, but cannot, at present, add to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) on 30th November, 1943, and to earlier answers and to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 8th December, 1943. In answer to the last part of the Question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and I will co-operate to ensure that the execution of plans is not delayed.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that this delay of not months, but years, is giving the impression that the Government are really incapable of producing any plans at all for the purpose of the location of post-war industry?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be responsible for all the erroneous impressions of the people.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the impression that the Government are delaying their decision on the Uthwatt and Barlow Reports


correct, and is it not the case that these reports have been in the hands of the Government for a long time, and is it not desirable that we should have some decision from the Government?

Mr. Morrison: It is not the case that the Government are delaying decisions on these matters. These weighty problems are proceeding towards solution and an announcement will be made on them at the earliest moment.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not a fact that there have been ceaseless representations made to His Majesty's Government and that neither municipalities nor private builders can make any plans whatever at this moment owing to want of decision on the part of the Government?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, that is not the case. Some excellent plans have been made and there is plenty to do for everybody.

Sir H. Williams: How can one plan on land which is frozen as a result of the Town and Country Planning Act?

Mr. Morrison: It is not frozen in that sense.

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the case that the inactivity of the Government is responsible for these impressions and that they are not erroneous?

Mr. Morrison: There is no inactivity on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is not the Minister aware that we are much obliged to him for the new term he has used and that it is at any rate an improvement on "urgent consideration."?

Mr. Shinwell: As the Minister has referred to plans, will he satisfy the natural curiosity of hon. Members and tell us something about those plans?

Mr. Morrison: On a suitable occasion, I shall be glad to give the House all information at my disposal, but if hon. Members will consult the planning authorities in their own areas, I think that many of them will be surprised at the amount of excellent work that is being done

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Pensions whether there is any difference in the rates of disability retired pay to officers disabled in the last war and this; and, if so, will be publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the different scales.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The standard rate of disability retired pay for 100 per cent. disablement in the war 1914–18 for a lieutenant, R.N., Army captain, and flight lieutenant was £210 a year. It is now £240. There is also a difference between the rate for a brigadier-general and analogous ranks in the war 1914–18 and that for brigadier and analogous ranks at present, but the ranks of brigadier-general and brigadier are not strictly comparable.

Mr. Bellenger: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for those two illustrations, may I ask whether he would publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a complete list of those war pensions for all commissioned ranks; and, further, whether he has received any representations from the Advisory Committee and the ex-Servicemen's organisation asking for an increase in those rates?

Sir W. Womersley: I have received no representations from either of those bodies to date. It is not necessary to publish the long list for which the hon. Member asks, because I have given the only differences.

Mr. Astor: What is the difference between "brigadier" and "brigadier-general" except the omission of the word "general"?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

U.N.R.R.A.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether any representations have been made by him or the Government of India for the inclusion of India in the operation of U.N.R.R.A.

Mr. Butler: I have been asked to reply in the absence of my right hon. Friend. No such representations have been made. India's external balances, as hon. Members will be aware, enable her to pay for her import requirements.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that America has taken certain steps in this direction and that it is highly desirable, in view of economic unrest in India, that the whole question of India should be brought within the province of U.N.R.R.A.?

Mr. Butler: I understand that no such representations have been made. The primary object of U.N.R.R.A. is the relief of territories liberated from the enemy.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that not apply to India?

Pandit Baij Nath (Detention)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the observations of the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on the detention of Pandit Baij Nath; and whether, in view of these observations and the serious state of his health, Pandit Baij Nath is to be released from detention.

Mr. Butler: I have seen a Press report of the matter referred to. Pandit Baij Nath was detained under the Defence of India Rules on the grounds of his association with the organisation of sabotage and subversive activities. The grounds of detention, which the Provincial Government have satisfied themselves were adequate, had no connection at all with his professional appearances for the defence in cases connected with the Congress disturbances. I understand that while in detention he fell ill and was transferred to a civil hospital, and that discretion has been given to release him on parole.

Mr. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the learned Lord Chief Justice said Pandit Baij Nath might die at any time; and has his release taken place subsequent to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice?

Mr. Butler: I have made inquiries to see whether a release has taken place and we have not yet got the information, but there is no doubt that his case will be treated sympathetically.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Has he got phlebitis?

Bengal (Destitute Children)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has

been drawn to the fact that a little girl being offered for sale in the Bengal famine area was bought by a British officer for one rupee, 1s. 6d., who took her to the welfare centre; and whether he has any statement to make thereon.

Mr. Butler: Inquiries have been made and I am informed that, while there have been many cases of destitute children being succoured by civil and military officers and taken to relief centres, the Government of Bengal have so far received no report of any case of the purchase of destitute children. They are, however, making further inquiries.

Mr. Bowles: Does my right hon. Friend know that this was a report in the "Birmingham Mail" of Friday, 4th February; and will he make further inquiries to find out whether this selling of young female children is a form of slavery, or what in other parts of the world might be described as white slavery?

Mr. Butler: I trust we need not extend the matter to the extent the hon. Gentleman has implied. I will give the House the full information directly I have obtained it.

Food Situation (Disease Incidence)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India what further progress has been made in dealing with food shortage in India; the weekly amount of rationed foods allowed per head; whether free food distributing centres are still operating; the extent of the spread of diseases caused or aggravated by food shortage; and official figures respecting deaths and hospital treatment of the victims of the famine.

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 20th January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White). The situation has further improved with the harvesting of the winter crops. Measures for the all-India control of prices have been agreed with the Provinces in respect of millets and are under active consideration for wheat and rice. Rationing in the towns has been put into operation on a wide scale, and the Calcutta scheme came into operation at the end of January. There is no universal


ration scale for British India but the cereal ration generally approximates to that of one pound a day advocated as a minimum in the Foodgrains Committee Report. Food Centres are continuing in operation where necessary but are progressively closing down.
The cholera and malaria situations are improving, but incidence is still abnormally high. Smallpox also presents a problem. Reliable figures are still not available of the number of deaths in India from starvation and resulting diseases. I have no complete figures for cases treated but up to 29th January over 2,000,000 cholera inoculations and over 1,500,000 vaccinations had been reported.

Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Secretary of State for India is likely to have figures regarding deaths from starvation?

Mr. Butler: It is difficult to give exact figures but I am endeavouring with the aid of my right hon. Friend to obtain them.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman was speaking of British India, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any information about the situation in Southern India—Cochin and neighbouring States?

Mr. Butler: A high priority has been given for quotas of grain to Travancore and Cochin, and there ought to be certain movements there which will make things better.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Have any steps yet been taken to see that the available food is taken out of the hands of the moneylenders and distributed among the people who need it?

Mr. Butler: That, of course, is one of the greatest problems in the present situation. I am satisfied from inquiries I have made that the Government of India are doing their very best in the way of control and distribution in order to meet the needs of the people.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (POST-WAR RECRUITMENT)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he

can make any statement about the resumption of recruitment to the permanent Civil Service during the reconstruction period.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I will, with the permission of the House, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later—

Sir J. Anderson: The Government have been considering what measures should be taken for recruitment to the Civil Service in the immediate post-war period. During the war there has been very little recruitment to the established Service. All open competitive examinations have been suspended. There are at present 215,000 established civil servants (plus a further 70,000 absent on war service) and many of these are already at or over normal retiring age. The number of established civil servants in April, 1939, was 290,000. As a result, the number of serving established civil servants will be a good deal smaller at the end of the war than it was at the beginning. Whatever form our economy may take after the war, it seems reasonably certain that the complexity of administration will, at any rate for many years, be greater than it was before the war. The established Civil Service will need the substantial reinforcement of a steady flow of young recruits of good educational standards, who will be available to help with the many and difficult problems of reconstruction, and to provide an experienced body of qualified staff in the years to come. After the last war recruitment by open competitive examinations was not resumed until 1925 for the general Administrative class, 1928 for the general Executive class, and 1927 for the general Clerical class. After this war, however, it should be an immediate objective, in the Government's view, to resume normal competitions, at the earliest possible moment, and thus to recruit properly qualified personnel at ages appropriate to entry on a permanent career.
It is the Government's intention that, after the war, everything possible shall be done to assist the establishment in careers of those who have missed their normal opportunity of achieving this as a result of the war, or of their own war service. It appears to the Government only equitable,


so far as the Civil Service is concerned, that the main source of recruits in the immediate post-war period should be from those who would have had an opportunity of competing for the Service in the normal course, but for the interruption of the war. For the Administrative, Executive and Clerical classes, this will mean, generally speaking, those who have gone into some form of war service straight from school or university. Recruitment by open competition from this source under conditions which will allow for the interruption of the candidates' education, and concurrent resumption of the normal competitions, will serve very well the main object of securing a steady flow of appropriately qualified personnel during the reconstruction period. Every care must be taken, in making the necessary administrative arrangements, to ensure that men and women who have been with the Forces during the war should be at no disadvantage in competing with civilians, either as a result of the particular form their war service may have taken, or because their demobilisation may, in some cases, take place rather late. Any arrangements made for recruitment to the Civil Service immediately after the war should ensure that generous treatment is given to suitable candidates from the Forces. During the whole of the reconstruction period, the work of the Civil Service must be carried on, probably under very severe pressure. The Government consider that arrangements will be needed for the retention of some of the existing temporary staff who are too old to be eligible for the open competitions, particularly staff who have shown special aptitude for the work of administration and who have acquired valuable experience of the Government service. No temporary staff should, however, be retained in the Civil Service unless their quality is sufficiently high and their retention plainly in the public interest.
Questions of the kind referred to in this statement are appropriate for discussion with Civil Service staff representatives through the Whitley machinery. The Government have, accordingly, referred the matter to the National Whitley Council, with a request that specific proposals, which it is hoped can be agreed between the two Sides of the Council, should be submitted to them as soon as possible. Further statements will be made in due course as proposals are submitted by the

Council and considered by the Government. Statements will also be made on other matters affecting the post-war Civil Service. As regards recruitment to the Foreign Service a statement will be made shortly by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Sir H. Williams: Will there be an opportunity of debating this matter, having regard to the fact that some of us hold the view that the Civil Service could be run with a much smaller personnel and should be completely overhauled?

Sir J. Anderson: I should have thought that many opportunities present themselves in the ordinary course.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the Committee on the training of civil servants yet presented its report, and cannot the organisation for the training of civil servants be made use of to help those in the temporary Civil Service to obtain positions on the permanent establishment?

Sir J. Anderson: The second part of the question must wait until the report is available. I have not got it yet but I expect to have it very soon.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he is aware that the question of recruitment for the Fighting Services is as urgent as for the Civil Service, and are the Government taking steps to consider that matter in the same way that they are apparently doing for the recruitment of the Civil Service?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): That question should be put on the Paper.

Mr. McEntee: Are any steps being taken now in conjunction with the Service Ministers to give opportunities to those who are now serving to qualify for the examinations which will take place after the war?

Sir J. Anderson: Any question about educational facilities available to serving men should be addressed to the appropriate Ministers. I can only say that in the provisions for recruitment for the Civil Service every care will be taken to see that due allowance is made for the interruption of normal education.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will my right hon. Friend undertake that a definite


preference will be given to men and women who have served in the Armed Forces?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think I need add anything, on that point, to the statement I have made. I have made it quite clear that special consideration will be given, subject to suitability, to candidates who have been in the Fighting Services.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: When men and women are recruited for the Civil Service after the war, will my right hon. Friend see that equal pay is given for equal work?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a different question.

Major Thorneycroft: Will a statement in more or less similar terms be made with regard to recruitment and training for the local government service?

Sir J. Anderson: No, that is a separate matter altogether.

Mr. Colegate: Will there be reconsideration of the retiring age of civil servants, which was fixed 60 or 70 years ago?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the question.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall: As educational facilities are now available to prisoners of war in Germany, will my right hon. Friend not overlook giving such opportunities to these men as there are?

Sir J. Anderson: That certainly will not be overlooked.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT ALLOWANCES

Mr. Robert Morgan: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the allowances paid, respectively, to boys directed to work in the coalmines, to civil servants, to evacuated teachers, to mobile workers, to evacuated children and to soldiers quartered on civilians.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I regret that in the short time available it has not been possible to obtain from the various Departments concerned the information asked

for. I am having the necessary inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as other Members are interested?

Mr. Assheton: If hon. Members wish.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEN'S AUSTERITY CLOTHING (STOCKS)

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to take over the whole production of utility suits in shops, warehouses and factories; what the approximate cost will be to the country; how he proposes to dispose of them and to whom.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): No, Sir. Most of the suits at present in stock will be needed to meet public demand in the next few months, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply intends to buy a limited quantity for the relief of occupied Europe.

Sir H. Williams: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend ask his colleagues in the Government to set an example to other Members of the community by wearing these utility suits?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION ACT (CERTIFICATES)

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of the Members of this House in respect of whom a certificate has been issued under the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1941, showing the date of the certificate, the office held and any salary, expenses or other emolument paid; whether the service is at home or abroad and similar information in respect of any Members whose certificate has been withdrawn.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir; but as the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mander: In view of the desire of the House to have this information, can the right hon. Gentleman not read it to the House now?

Mr. Attlee: It is very long.

Following are the figures:


Present Holders of Certificates.


Name of M.P.
Date certificate granted.
Office held.
Salary.
Expenses.


Sir Ian Fraser
…
15.4.41
Governor, British Broadcasting Corporation.
£1,000
Reinbursement of actual expenses properly incurred in the due performance of the office.


Mr. Malcolm Macdonald.
15.4.41
U.K. High Commissioner in Canada.
£2,500
£2,500 representation allowance. £400 approx. on travelling expenses and subsistence in 1942/43. Official residence.


Sir Ronald Cross
…
7.5.41
U.K. High Commissioner in Australia.
£2,500
£3,500 representation allowance. £520 approx. on travelling expenses and subsistence in 1942/43. Official residence.


Mr. R. C. Morrison.
…
16.5.41
Chairman, Waste Food Board.
Nil
£200 allowance; repayment of travelling and subsistence costs.


Miss Megan Lloyd George.
16.5.41
Member, Waste Food Board.
Nil
Nil


Sir Peter Bennett
…
10.6.41
Chairman, Automatic Gun Board.
Nil
Nil


Mr. Harold Nicolson
21.7.41
Governor, British Broadcasting Corporation.
£1,000
Reimbursement of actual expenses properly incurred in the due performance of the office.


Professor A. V. Hill
…
22.7.41
Member of Ordnance Board.
Fees at prescribed rates per meeting
Nil


Mr. G. Spencer Summers.
25.7.41
Control er of Regional Organisation, M/Supply.
Nil
£200 allowance; repayment of travelling and subsistence costs.


Mr. T. H. Hewlett
…
26.10.41
Dyestuffs Controller, Board of Trade.
Nil
Nil


Major-Gen. Sir E. L. Spears.
16.1.42
Minister to Syria and Lebanon.
£2,000
£4,800. Furnished accommodation provided.


Mr. Arthur Jenkins
…
28.1.42
Chairman of Local Appeal Board under Essential Works Order.
Fees at prescribed rates per session
Nil


Mr. Harold Macmillan
30.12.42
Minister Resident at Allied Headquarters in North West Africa.
£3,000
£3,000


Mr. J. D. Campbell
…
17.2.43
Deputy Flax Controller in Northern Ireland.
Nil
£200 allowance; repayment of travelling and subsistence costs.


Admiral Sir William James.
23.2.43
Chief of Naval Information.
£2,314 (= pay of reemployed Flag Officer).
Nil


Mr. J. S. Maclay
…
4.11.43
Member of British Merchant Shipping Mission in U.S.
Nil
£1,800 (inclusive of usual Mission allowance).


Mr. Ben Smith
…
11.11.43
Minister Resident in Washington for Supply.
£3,000
£6,800 global representation allowance (inclusive of rent allowance).


Rt. Hon. Alfred Duff Cooper.
12.11.43
Representative of H.M.G. to French National Committee of Liberation.
£2,500
£3,050. Furnished accommodation provided.


Mr. William Leonard
18.1.44
Member, Waste Food Board.
Nil
Nil

Previous Holders of Certificates, now lapsed


Name of M.P.
Date certificate granted.
Office Held.
Salary.
Expenses.


Mr. W. P. Spens
…
26.6.41
Chairman and Director National Vegetable Marketing Co. Ltd.
£1,250
£50


Mr. L. R. Pym
…
15.7.41
Director, National Vegetable Marketing Co. Ltd.
Nil
Nil


Professor A. V. Hill
…
22.7.41
Member of Advisory Council on Scientific Research and Technical Development.
Fees at prescribed rates
Nil


Sir Walter Smiles
…
11.9.41
Regional Representative, M.A.P.
Nil
Nil


Commander King-Hall (two certificates).
(a) 28.1.42
Adviser on Public Relations, M.A.P.
Nil
Subsistance allowance Class A rates.




(b) 9.8.42
Chairman of Fuel Economy Publicity Committee, Ministry of Fuel and Power.
Nil
Expenses allowance of up to £200 per annum.


Mr. W. W. Wakefield
28.1.42
Director of the Air Training Corps.
Nil
£100 allowance; repayment of travelling and subsistence costs.


Lord Burghley (two certificates).
(a)12.7.42
Controller of American Supplies and Repair, M.A.P.
Nil
Nil




(b) 17.8.43
Governor and Commander-in-Chief, Bermuda.
£3,500 (paid by local Govt.) plus war bonus.
£1,500 entertainment allowance (paid by local Govt.)




£1,500 allowance (paid from Imperial funds).


Col. J. J. Llewellin
…
21.11.42
Minister Resident in Washington for Supply.
£5,000
£6,800 global representation allowance (inclusive of rent allowance).


Mr. W. McNair Snadden.
20.2.43
Member, Waste Food Board.
Nil
Nil


Note.—In both lists alike, the salaries, but not the allowances, are subject to tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Machinery

Sir William Wayland: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, considering the bad condition of agricultural machinery loaned by the Kent War Agricultural Executive Committee to farmers and the inadequate arrangements for repairs in 1943, he will see that better and more efficient service is given this year.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am not aware of any complaints by farmers about the condition of machinery which the Kent War Agricultural Executive Committee have available for hire, but if my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars I will have the matter looked into.

Sir W. Wayland: I should be very pleased to do so.

Fertilisers

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the complaints by the farming community to the effect that, in contravention of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, many fertilisers now on the market do not maintain their declared figures of analysis, being particularly deficient in potash; and whether he is taking any steps to deal with this matter.

Mr. Hudson: I am looking into the matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Act of 1926 fines of £50 and £20 can be imposed? Will he say whether this is a sufficient deterrent at the present time?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. I had seen the proposed answer, but I was not satisfied and therefore I am looking into the matter personally and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. de la Bère: Surely this is not a private matter between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member? All Members would like to know about it.

Farm Sales, Lincolnshire

Mr. J. J. Lawson: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that at an auction held in Boston, Lincolnshire, on 10th February, farms were sold at considerably increased prices, the price in one case being treble that for which it was bought a few years ago; and what action his Department is taking to deal with this exploitation of the country during the present emergency.

Mr. Hudson: I have seen a report of these transactions. I have no powers to intervene unless it appears that food production may suffer as a result of action of speculators or of threatened dispossession of tenants who are farming the land well. This danger does not appear to arise in the present case, but county war agricultural executive committees are careful to watch transactions of this sort from the point of view of food production.

Mr. Butcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is two-crop land, and will he give some indication as to what price he and the Crown Agent are requiring for the Crown land in this area?

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not lend himself to any abandonment of the traditional practice of letting some people make money at other people's expense?

Mr. MacLaren: Is not this extortionate price for farming land a natural sequence of subsidising farm produce?

Oral Answers to Questions — ORANGES (DISTRIBUTION)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Food whether he can now make a statement in regard to the postponed distribution of oranges to the people of Britain.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): While early shipments of oranges were delayed, cargoes are now arriving at a satisfactory

rate. A first allocation at the rate of 1 lb. per head of the population has been made to traders throughout the country. The second allocation is about to start and will, I hope, be completed by early March.

Sir T. Moore: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his hopeful anticipation may I ask him whether it would not be wiser in future to defer announcements of this nature until the fruit is actually available, and so avoid disappointment?

Mr. Mabane: It is, of course, unfortunate when announcements are made and they turn out, in the end, to have been made too soon. We were disappointed about our shipments in December, but at the present time we are up to date.

Mr. E. Walkden: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider a complete change of policy in future by importing concentrated orange juice, in view of the losses we have suffered through decay and other means?

Mr. Mabane: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Shifts Lost

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give the latest total number of shifts which have been lost in the mining industry, when the workmen have been available for work, for which the guaranteed wage has been paid; and the estimated loss of output due to this cause.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): During the four weeks ended 15th January the provisional total figure of shifts lost in the coal mining industry, for which guaranteed wage was paid, was 213,000. This total includes shifts lost owing to there being no work available, substituted work on which allowances were made, waiting time and losses due to breakdown of transport, etc. The estimated loss of output was 216,000 tons.

Mr. Foster: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that coal owners are sending men home when work is available and


that output has been affected by this means of reducing their costs of production?

Major Lloyd George: I get from my regional officers a weekly return giving the exact details of shifts lost. I am not denying that there has been some abuse of the system but it has been greatly tightened, and will I hope be tightened up still further.

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what machinery exists in his Department for ascertaining the causes for the number of shifts lost, when the workman is available for work, with its consequent loss of output of coal.

Major Lloyd George: Each colliery furnishes weekly to the regional statistical officer of the Ministry a return giving complete information as to the cause of loss of shifts for which guaranteed wage is paid.

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister conveying to the House that his Department are aware of the causes for the payment of this guaranteed wage and that the owners are not using the fund, as I have just pointed out, for the purposes of subsidising their costs of production?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend had listened to my previous supplementary answer, he would have heard that I said we are aware of certain abuses and are doing our best to check them.

Mr. Bowles: Are any of these people who are guilty being prosecuted?

Major Lloyd George: What happens is that the money has to be refunded.

Mechanisation

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give the total number of seams being worked in the British coalfields; the number mechanised; the number of power loaders installed; and give figures for the past two years separately.

Major Lloyd George: I regret that it is not possible to give this information in the form asked for by my hon. Friend, but I am sending him such information in regard to mechanisation as is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SAFETY

Sir C. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware that the deaths and accidents on the roads show no improvement and that the number of children killed was higher than in pre-war years; to what extent it is estimated that a reduction of the speed limit below the 30 miles in built-up areas is advisable; what steps the Government are taking to reduce these figures; and whether plans are already being prepared for road improvements after the war.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir, I am aware that accidents on the roads still constitute a serious social problem, and that the number of deaths and injuries which result is distressingly high. My right hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that the permitted speed limit in built-up areas has been reduced to 20 miles an hour during the blackout, and I have no evidence to show that a further reduction would in present conditions promote the object which he has in view. The Government are, however, giving close and continuous attention to the whole problem of road accidents, and they are preparing a comprehensive programme of measures for greater road safety after the war. Among these measures will, I hope, be improvements in road lay-out and construction designed to segregate the different kinds of traffic which use the roads.

Sir H. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations, both to the British and Allied military authorities, about the dangerous driving by military personnel?

Mrs. Hardie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the speed limit is not in force in built-up areas and that in the suburbs, especially, drivers are driving at 70 miles an hour and nothing is being done about it? I saw a whole lot of children nearly mown down the other day.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The police are doing their very best, but, of course, they are short handed.

Sir H. Williams: Could I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have the hon. Member's question very much in our minds and we are doing what we can.

Sir T. Moore: Could the hon. Member say how it is possible for the police to interfere with a despatch rider who is travelling at 70 or 80 miles per hour? He is away before they can see what damage has been done.

Major John Morrison: Is there not a complete lack of uniformity as regards the headlights of many vehicles?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, and we are very much aware of it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Are we to understand that the Ministry are taking no definite steps in war-time to reduce the number of accidents?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We are doing everything we can, although I admit it is mostly confined to propaganda about the dangers of the roads and education in schools and among parents. Anything to do with the reconstruction and redesigning of roads is quite impossible at the present time. Moreover, as I have said, the police are short handed.

Mr. Bowles: Can my hon. Friend say whether the civilian authorities in this country, including his own Ministry, have, in fact, any control whatsoever over the Americans?

Sir Dymoke White: Will the hon. Gentleman take stops to consult the Service authorities with a view to getting Service men not to walk on the left of the road at night, which is most dangerous, especially in the case of naval personnel, whose blue coats cannot be seen in the black-out?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If we could persuade both Service people and civilians to walk on the right of the roads either by night or by day, a vast number of accidents would be avoided. So far, every effort has failed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (GERMAN SUBMARINE PARTS)

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Spanish firm has delivered to representatives of the German command a large consignment of important parts for submarines manufactured under a contract now in operation; and if strong representations will immediately be made to the Spanish

Government on this breach of neutrality with a request that this contract be at once terminated.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As regards the first part of the Question, I have no information to confirm this report. I should be grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend would let me have any evidence in his possession.

Sir M. Sueter: The information was given on the Russian wireless on 6th February.

Mr. Eden: If it was given on the Russian wireless, I now know where to apply for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS MESSAGES, ITALY (CENSORSHIP)

Mr. Beverley Baxter: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason are newspaper correspondents' despatches in Italy to be held up by sending them to Naples for censorship, and would the Minister explain what is meant by censoring for policy.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I have at present no information beyond the reports that I have seen in this morning's papers, but I am making inquiries.

Mr. Baxter: Will my right hon. Friend, in sending his inquiries to the military authorities, express to them the very strong feeling of the House that for military authorities to go beyond security, and dictate to correspondents their interpretation of events, is something which neither the House nor the nation will tolerate?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not think that military commanders on the spot are unaware of the modern form of the old tag, "Ruat coelum fiat publicitas."

Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. Gentleman read that General Alexander stated that some of these restrictions placed upon Press correspondents are due to a request from London? Did that request originate in his Department, or did it come from a higher authority?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is one of the pieces of information in the morning newspapers which I did not see.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Is the Secretary of State in Order in giving an answer in a foreign language?

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that, having made his inquiries into the substance of the Question of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), the right hon. Gentleman will report to the House very soon?

Sir J. Griģģ: It is always open to the hon. Member to repeat his Question when I have the information. I will let him know when I have it.

Commander Locker-Lampson: For the benefit of old Etonians, can the tag be translated?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger)?

Sir J. Griģģ: I am unwilling to go beyond what I have said. I have no information beyond what has appeared in the newspapers but I am making inquiries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the forthcoming Business?

Mr. Eden: With regard to the Business for to-day, we are asking for the suspension of the Rule because, after the Committee stage of the Income Tax (Offices and Employments) Bill, we want to make sufficient progress in Committee with the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill to ensure our concluding the Committee stage on the next Sitting Day. We also want to obtain the Committee and remaining stages of the Prize Salvage Bill, which I understand is not controversial but is an urgent Measure, and also the Courts (Emergency Powers) (Scotland) Bill. I hope we shall be able to make sufficient progress without asking the House to sit unduly late.
The Business for the next series of Sitting Days will be:
First and Second Sitting Days—My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on the war and the international situation on the first Sitting Day. The statement will be made on the Motion for the Adjournment of the

House and an opportunity will arise for a Debate, which will be continued and concluded on the second Sitting Day.
Third and Fourth Sitting Days—We shall make further progress in Committee on the Education Bill.
During this series of Sittings we shall ask the House to take the remaining stages of the Income Tax (Offices and Employments) Bill.

Mr. Tinker: Can I ask the right hon Gentleman to extend the War Debate on the first day because it will be a long discussion, and it will give the greatest satisfaction if we can have a longer time?

Mr. Eden: I was going into that and making soundings through the usual channels. I think we might have an extension on the first day and none on the second.

Mr. Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of what he will regard as satisfactory progress on the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill? How far does he hope to get?

Mr. Eden: I hope to get as far as I possibly can.

Mr. Maxton: Have the Government considered whether the War Debate is not a proper occasion for a discussion on a positive Motion of the Government, rather than on the Motion for the Adjournment?

Mr. Eden: We had considered that and we thought that this was, on the whole, the most convenient form in present conditions.

Mr. Maxton: Are we to understand that if the Motion for the Adjournment is agreed to, it will be regarded as approval of the proceedings of the Teheran Conference, the Cairo Conference and the various other matters that have developed since?

Mr. Eden: If there is no positive Motion, clearly the interpretation is open to the hon. Gentleman and anyone else.

Mr. Maxton: Would it be open to us to vote against it?

Mr. Eden: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. W. J. Brown: When is it likely that we shall be given the terms of the Bill, which was promised last Session, dealing with the pensions of retired State servants?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend tells me that he is introducing it during the next series of Sittings and that there will be a Debate in the following series.

Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose at an early date to give an opportunity for a Debate on post-war currency? In that connection, has his attention been called to the conversations that are going on in America, which are causing a good deal of anxiety in this country in responsible quarters?

Mr. Eden: I do not know what my hon. Friend's anxiety is about. Perhaps he will be good enough to put down a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter. I can certainly see no present prospect of giving opportunity for a Debate. There has been a Government undertaking that there will be no commitment on this matter until the House has had an opportunity of Debate.

Mr. Stokes: I have put several questions to the Chancellor, but he only stonewalls them.

Mr. Eden: I can only encourage my hon. Friend to persevere.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Will the War Debate include our foreign relationships, and their general bearing on the Empire as a whole?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend's statement will be on the war situation and international relations. The width of the Debate is not a matter for me.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea how many days he proposes to spend on the Education Bill?

Mr. Eden: As few as we can contrive. My hon. Friend can guess as well as I can.

Mr. A. Bevan: Last week a number of Members asked questions about a Debate on housing. The right hon. Gentleman has made no announcement about it to-day. A number of important Debates have taken place in another place. Is it not time for the House of Commons to discuss these urgent domestic matters?

Mr. Eden: I have in mind that the matter was raised, but there are a number of other very urgent matters. We must make progress with the Education Bill and the War Debate must have first place. I am not, at present, prepared to say what we shall do in the following series of Sittings, but there are many other claims.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is hardly any problem which presses more urgently on our own people than that of housing; and will he consider during the next series of Sittings, whether we can have a Debate in the following series?

Mr. Eden: It does not follow, because we do not have a Debate, that the Government are not making their plans. They are.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, on the question of a housing Debate, not confining it to England or Scotland, but making it a survey of the housing needs of the country as a whole?

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. Willink: I should like, with permission, to make a short statement regarding the White Paper on the Government's proposals for a National Health Service, presented by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. This will be available in the Vote Office to-day. The Paper is, necessarily, a long document and its subject is complex. We have, therefore, prepared for the convenience of hon. Members and their constituents a shorter paper describing the Government's proposals in brief. For full details of the proposals and on any point of uncertainty reference must, of course, be made to the White Paper itself. But the whole scheme is described in the short paper and hon. Members may find it convenient to read this first. The short paper is published as a Stationery Office paper, and copies will be available for hon. Members in the Vote Office at the same time as the main Paper.
The proposals described in the White Paper are those which the Government believe to be best calculated to achieve an efficient and comprehensive National


Health Service But they are proposals—not decisions—and the Government have promised that they shall be discussed with all concerned, and will welcome constructive criticism in Parliament and the country.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, within a reasonable time after hon. Members have had an opportunity of studying the White Paper, we can have a Debate of, say, two days?

Mr. Eden: It is certainly the Government's intention that there should be a Debate as soon as hon. Members have had a full opportunity of examining the proposals.

Mr. John Wilmot: Is the Financial Memorandum which was promised by the Chancellor included in this White Paper, or is it to be issued as a separate document? We were promised a comparison of the financial effects of the White Paper scheme, both as regards the Treasury contributions and the contributor's contributions, with the Beveridge Report proposals.

Mr. Willink: The hon. Member will find that there is an appendix dealing briefly with the matters to which he has referred.

Mr. Wilmot: Is the comparison, which is an essential part of the Paper promised, included in this document?

Mr. Willink: There is a comparison.

Commander King-Hall: On the question of the pressure of Business, have the Government reached any decision—

Mr. Speaker: We have finished with the question of Business.

Mr. Mathers: The Minister of Health said that an abridged edition of this Report has been prepared for our constituents; what is the extent of the issue and the price?

Mr. Willink: The White Paper itself is about four times the length of the abridged version. It is also four times the price. The prices are 1s. and 3d. respectively.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1944)

Estimates presented for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending

on the 31st day of March, 1945, with Memorandum (By Command); referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed (No. 35).

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1944 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Estimate presented showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945 (By Command); referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed (No. 36).

INCOME TAX (OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS)

"That where a person holds an office or employment in the year 1943–44 under such circumstances that the emoluments thereof are assessable to income tax under Schedule E by reference to the amount thereof for the previous year of assessment, and the actual emoluments arising from that office or employment for the year 1943–44 or any previous year of assessment are increased by reason of anything which happens after the 20th day of September, 1943, the amount of the increase shall be added to the income arising from the office or employment as computed for the purposes of assessment to income tax for the year 1943–44 and charged to tax (including surtax) accordingly, but shall not be taken into account in considering whether any and if so what discharge of tax is to be made under section three of the Income Tax (Employments) Act, 1943."

Resolution agreed to.

INCOME TAX (OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer of certain annuities to Schedule E.)

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "for the purposes of."
This Amendment and the following one in my name have been put down at the request of the Port of London Authority, and their purpose is merely to make it clearer than the Bill as drafted does that the status quo of these tax-free payments remains.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): Since this Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend

the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) merely clarifies and makes more certain the original terms of the Bill, I have great pleasure in accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 8, leave out from "payments)," to the end of line 10, and insert:
shall continue to have effect as if the substitution made by this subsection had not been made."—[Mr. Keeling.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Extension of discharge provisions of principal Act.)

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Brown.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. There are on the Order Paper two Amendments concerning different parts of the Measure which deal with subjects which overlap. There is the Amendment which has just been called, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), and there is an Amendment in the name of myself and some of my hon. Friends which takes the form of a new Clause. The difference between the two Amendments, as I understand it, is, in effect, that one deals with Crown servants, including permanent civil servants, and the other with temporary civil servants only. As the Committee will recollect, the arguments directed to the two cases by the Government have been different, and it has been open to hon. Members to take different views about them. The view of my hon. Friends and myself is likely to be—subject to the opinion of the Committee and the views expressed—that we agree with the Government about the permanent civil servants but not the temporary. We are therefore anxious to divide the Committee, if need be, on the question of temporary civil servants only. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Williams, as to the correct procedure to follow. I believe that the right plan would be for those who are interested in the temporaries as distinct from the permanents to await Clause 6, and I shoud be grateful if there could be some guidance given to us on the point.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) wish to put any point of Order on that?

Mr. W. J. Brown: If I may make a submission, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is not quite correct in saying that the distinction between the two Amendments is that one covers both permanent and temporary civil servants and the other only the temporary. My Amendment is concerned not only with temporary and permanent civil servants but also with men serving in His Majesty's Forces. It comprehends all Crown servants. It is true that hon. Members may take a different point of view as regards any one of those three categories. It may be so, but if the Committee do not want their view to embrace all three categories, they would presumably reject my Amendment, and then deal with Amendments dealing with the separate categories. I may say that the Income Tax authorities tell me that it is under Clause 4 that we must deal with this matter.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have had the best advice available, but the Committee will realise that it is not a particularly easy problem for me. I suggest that it would be in the interests of the Committee as a whole if we took the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), and if we dealt with the matter of permanent civil servants, though I think he is right in saying that it does cover a rather wider area, but that it would be better possibly to defer a decision on temporary civil servants until the new Clause of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is reached. Meanwhile, we could deal with the wider issue and more particularly with the permanent civil servants. If the Committee are agreed upon that point I think we could carry on the discussion on that understanding.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after "are", to insert:
persons in Crown employment whose tax is ordinarily deducted within the financial year and.
I am very happy indeed, Mr. Williams, to comply with your suggestion, if that suits the convenience of the Committee, though my doing so ruins a very good speech which I had prepared. I will confine myself at this stage to the case of permanent civil servants, and then, if I catch your eye later, deal with the

temporaries. There is in Parliament a very great deal of sympathy with the position of temporary civil servants, and I have no doubt that that sympathy will find expression at a later stage of this Debate. I am bound to concede that there is not the same degree of sympathy with the case of the permanent civil servant. The attitude of hon. Members, in private conversations with me, has been something like this: "The temporary civil servant's case we can understand. Here is a man who comes into the Civil Service in, say, 1939, and pays double tax on the basis that later on he will have a tax holiday, and that tax holiday is withdrawn under this Bill. But how does that apply to the permanent civil servant? Is his case at all the same in principle as the case of the temporary man? If it is not, exactly what is the case of the permanent civil servant?"
I fear the Committee are under the impression that the case of the permanent civil servant is a case of the past, that what happened to the permanent civil servant was that when he came into the Civil Service, it may be many years ago, he was translated from the ordinary system of paying Income Tax this year on last year's income to a Pay-as-you-go system on which he has been ever since. Hon. Members represent to me that to try to reopen that case now is to go back into the dim and distant past, and that we ought not to go back as far as that. I want to make it clear that what permanent civil servants are concerned about is not a past grievance at all, but a grievance arising on their tax for the year 1943–44. In 1942 every Schedule E taxpayer in Britain, civil servant or non-civil servant, expected that in 1943–44 he would pay a certain amount of tax. The civil servant has been compelled to pay that full tax, but the outside tax-payer is being excused seven-twelfths of his tax under the terms of this Bill. For some reason or another the civil servant in 1943–44 is compelled to pay the full year's tax while the members of the outside public are required to pay only a portion of it. The grievance of the permanent civil servant is not an abstract thing of the remote past, but a grievance over what he has to pay in 1943–44.

Commander Galbraith: Can the hon. Member say


whether his argument is addressed not only to permanent civil servants but also to all permanent servants of the Crown?

Mr. Brown: It was my intention to have said in my first sentence, if the massive architecture of it had not been disturbed by the arrangement we have just come to, that this did cover serving soldiers as well as civil servants, but that I was proposing to leave it to other hon. Members, who are better informed on that aspect of the matter than I am, to develop the arguments concerning them, and that I would confine myself to permanent civil servants.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member's Amendment is dealing with permanent and regular servants of the Crown?

Mr. Brown: I am not qualifying or limiting it in any way. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke at the end of the Debate on the Second Reading what was his justification for the arrangement in the Bill? It was that while the position might be a bit rough upon civil servants, we had to look at these things by and large, and that when the civil servant came to the end of his life he would not have paid in tax any more than he ought to have paid and would not have paid tax upon income that he had not received. At the end of his life he will have paid only the tax which was properly due on the moneys he had received. I noticed that the House responded sympathetically to what the Financial Secretary said, because the House evidently deduced from it that, whatever the incidence of the matter might be, in the long run rough justice was done. It may be true that at the end of his life the civil servant has paid no more tax than the tax which was due upon his income, but the whole point and pith of the matter is that his colleague in trade and industry outside will not have paid the full tax, but the full tax less seven-twelfths of this one year's tax.
In other words, there is an anomaly as between the position of the outside taxpayer and the position of the permanent civil servant to the disadvantage of the permanent civil servant. In a single sentence, we must do justice between one man and another. The Chancellor says

that the civil servant has no more reason to complain of his treatment under Schedule E than other taxpayers under other schedules of Income Tax such B, C and D. There again, the Chancellor, if I may say so, misses the point. It is perfectly true that people coming under Schedules B, C and D will not come under Pay-as-you-earn, because the Chancellor has not put them there. The Chancellor has decided that he only wants Pay - as - you - earn applied to Schedule E taxpayers, wage and salary earners, but he is not entitled to quote that fact as a justification for distinguishing between a Schedule E taxpayer and another. That is exactly what he tried to do in the course of his remarks on the Second Reading.
I want to say to the Committee that the civil servants are feeling very aggrieved about this matter. It is not merely that they lose money by it—that they are denied the seven-twelfths remission which everybody else gets—it is that they resent this as a raw deal. They say, and they say it in language which my vocabulary would not allow to traverse, and which I should not be allowed to utter even if it would, "Here are we, 350,000 of us, and among us are those Inland Revenue officers who will have to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. We permanent civil servants will have to distribute to millions of Schedule E taxpayers a seven-twelfths rebate on tax for 1943–44, but we civil servants, who are much better than the outside taxpayer in various ways, are denied that remission. Why are we better than the outside folks? First of all, all our lives—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think not.

Mr. Brown: I hope I am not out of Order in trying to convey to the Committee the feeling of civil servants on this point, which is linked up with their past experience.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am only suggesting that if we have this discussion it would be better not to say that civil servants are better than outside people.

Mr. Brown: Let me put it this way. It so happens that the civil servant throughout his lifetime has never been in arrear with his Schedule E tax, because


he has always been under a Pay-as-you-earn scheme. He feels that he has always been the model taxpayer in that sense, and he regards it as a double injustice that he is now denied the seven-twelfths relief which the ordinary taxpayer gets. He is very sore about it. I hope that the Chancellor is not going to be sticky at this last hurdle. He is going to get a lot out of this Bill. He is going to get a situation in which there will never again be any Schedule E lag in tax, for anybody. From one end of the country to the other, all will be paying up to date as they earn. Next, he gets out of it tax on the civil servant's current revenue instead of on last year's and, and in very many cases, the current revenue is higher than last year's because the man and the woman are making their way up the incremental scale, so that he will get more tax than he would have done under the old arrangement.
When the taxpayer dies and shuffles off this earth and goes to the realm of light where there is no taxing or giving in tax, the Chancellor will be under no obligation to distrain on the estate which the taxpayer leaves behind, because he will have been paid up to date—a very effective system of tax collection. I hope the Chancellor is not going to spoil a thoroughly good Bill by being just mean about the very people who have got to apply it in practice. I submit that I have established the contention that the civil servant is badly done-by, but I want to repeat it in a formula which I think the Chancellor will not have to re-shape or overturn. The point is that before the introduction of Pay-as-you-earn, everyone inside and outside the Civil Service accepted his liability for tax payable from March, 1943, to April, 1944. Under the Bill however, everyone except Civil servants receives a discharge equal to seven-twelfths of the tax payable during that year. I know that railway clerks are somewhat similarly treated, and I shall be happy to support the claim on their behalf. Can the Committee, therefore, wonder that the civil servant feels very sore about it.
I do not think it is worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to avoid the discharge of tax in the case of this comparatively small section of the community—350,000 out of 45,000,000 is the figure involved. It is not worth his while to

mar this good Bill for such a small matter, and I beg him, therefore, not to be obdurate, and not to harden his heart. I beg him to be as big in this matter as he has shown himself capable of being in others, and to lay down the rule that the civil servant, as well as the outside taxpayer, shall have that seven-twelfths remission. The rest that I would like to say I will reserve for the discussion at a later stage. That is my case for including the permanent civil servant, and there is no just answer to it except to include them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, but his Amendment is one which I could not possibly accept, and I will explain in a very few words why. My hon. Friend made, I feel sure, the very best of a not too easy case. What he said, in effect, was that as the law stands there has been inequality between the treatment of civil servants and the treatment of other Schedule E taxpayers. That is true. He said there had been, and is, an anomaly. With that, also, I am not disposed to quarrel. It depends on how you define anomaly. But when he goes on to imply that there has been injustice, I absolutely reject it. We must try to do justice, but we cannot, in Revenue administration, ensure equality as between one taxpayer and another, or between one class of taxpayer and another, or as between the taxpayer of to-day and the taxpayer of some years ago. There has been from the very beginning an entirely different treatment for the civil servant and the railway servant from that for other people paying tax under Schedule E.
I do not think that the difference in treatment for the civil servant has been entirely to his disadvantage. I do not take the view that it is a bad thing to pay your liabilities on the nail, to keep your payments absolutely up to date and to be clear of the anxiety as to what may happen to your dependants if you suddenly die and there is an overhanging liability—which has applied to all other classes of Schedule E taxpayers—a liability which has to met out of a possibly very meagre estate. It is not, in fact, possible to do away with tax anomalies and inequalities of the kind which my hon. Friend has referred to unless every time


an Amendment of Revenue law is made you try to apply it retrospectively, a course which would be quite impossible, inimical to all reforms and quite inconsistent with sound principles of Revenue administration.
Having said so much and having dealt with this question really very fully on two previous occasions, I will just turn for one moment to the Amendment on the Paper and see what the effect of it would be. The Amendment applies to civil servants, to men and women in the Government service, to all classes of Crown servants, judges, Ministers of the Crown, and so on. It applies to Members of Parliament too, and I do not know whether they could be included in the category of temporary civil servants which we are about to deal with separately. Just for a moment, despite the understanding on which we are proceeding, I would like to look at the thing comprehensively. The effect would be simply this. Alone in the community those people to whom the Amendment applies would, during a year of war, be paying tax less by seven-twelfths on a year's income than all the other members of the community. Surely that would be a wholly impossible position, and it would be a disservice to the people in whom my hon. Friend and I are equally interested to try to put them in that position. They have no real grievance inasmuch as they have not suffered hardship.
When we come to the temporary civil servants, my task will be different. I shall have to recognise, as I have recognised in the past, that there is there an element of hardship. In the case of the permanent civil servants there may be inequality, but I do absolutely deny that there is an element of hardship in allowing these people to go on as they have always done. It is true that under the new plan they will be paying on their current remuneration and not on their remuneration for the previous year as in the past. They asked for that change and it has been conceded to them. This is an entirely separate proposition and one which, for the reasons I have given, I could not possibly accept.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am in a quandary. If I cannot get all I want out of the Chancellor, I want to get all I can, and, since I do not see my way to muster a majority in the Lobby against him on this point, I must now concentrate upon success upon the second issue. With very great doubts in my mind—I have no doubt I shall get into a row about it—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lipson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after "are," to insert:
British subjects employed by Allied Governments in this country and paid by them and.
I trust that this Amendment will commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the present moment there are many British subjects—I am told they are many thousands—who are employed by Allied Governments in this country and paid by them. It was assumed that they would benefit under the Pay-as-you-earn scheme, but apparently that is not to be so. Therefore I have put down the Amendment so that either the Chancellor can give an adequate reason to the Committee why these people should not be included or, if he is unable to do that, he should express his willingness that they should be included. The arguments which have been advanced against the previous Amendment do not apply to this class of taxpayer. It is important, in introducing legislation of any kind, and also when we are dealing with matters of finance, that people who are in comparable positions should, as far as possible, be treated alike, as otherwise a feeling of injustice is created. It is most important that such a grievance should be removed, or that it should be made clear that there are convincing reasons why that cannot be done.
I think it is true to say that the very large majority of these people are employed by the Americans, and I cannot imagine that the Americans would have any difficulty in working a scheme of this kind because they are familiar in their own country with the Pay-as-you-earn scheme. I hope that the Chancellor will see his way clear to removing this discrimination. These people have entered this service in very good faith and I believe that the terms of their employment and remuneration have been decided in consultation with the Ministry


of Labour. Otherwise, the Americans would have been inclined to pay them on a higher scale. As their earnings are therefore considerably less than they would have been, because of the action taken by one Department of His Majesty's Government, and they are treated as if they were employed by a British Ministry, the same rule should be applied to their taxation. I put forward this Amendment with the confidence that either the Chancellor will give us a convincing reason why he cannot accept it, or that he will consider it favourably.

Mr. Assheton: My hon. Friend has made clear to the Committee what he seeks to achieve, but I have to tell him that he is under a misapprehension and that there is no necessity for him to move his Amendment. The taxpayers whom he has in mind are already entitled to a full discharge of taxation under the Act of 1943. Under Section 3 of that Act, the discharge does not rest upon deduction of tax by the employer, and applies to all emoluments to which Pay-as-you-earn applies, with certain exceptions, which include civil servants. These are not a class to whom my hon. Friend intended his Amendment to apply. I hope that he will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Lipson: I am glad to have the Minister's assurance. Information had reached me that the Inland Revenue had told these people that they were not to benefit. Now that I have had the Minister's authoritative statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Service in or with the Armed Forces of the Crown.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I do not want to initiate a Debate on this question, but certain words said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) on a point of Order have led me to enter a caveat. The Amendment which is down in the names of the hon. Member and myself is designed to cover the case of people temporarily serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown. Whether or not we have drawn it cleverly

enough to cover them, in view of Clause 5, I do not know. Neither the hon. Member nor myself interfered with Clause 5 in our proposed Amendment, but should we be successful in carrying our point on Clause 5 we should expect the Government to treat our arguments as designed to protect equally with the temporary civil servant those who are temporarily serving with the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Mr. Benson: As the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman definitely and completely excludes the Armed Forces—

Mr. Hogg: No.

Mr. Benson: Oh, yes; at any rate it excludes officers in the Armed Forces. Let me quote his Amendment. He defines Crown employment as all officers who are
treated as falling within Rule 11 of the Rules applicable to Schedule E.
Officers of the Armed Forces are not dealt with under Rule 11 but under Rule 6. Therefore the hon. Member completely excludes, by definition, all the officers of the Armed Forces. Whether he excludes privates and ratings I do not know, because—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must point out that we have not got on to that Amendment yet.

Mr. Benson: I was really on a point of Order, Mr. Williams. The question is whether we must deal with the Armed Forces on Clause 5, or whether we shall be able to deal with them on Clause 6, or on the substitute proposed new Clause of the hon. Member. He claims, in his point of Order that he has drawn his Amendment to include the Armed Forces, but it is not so. He has drawn it to exclude the Armed Forces. I want to raise the position of the Armed Forces, but I am not clear whether I can to do it on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," on Clause 6, or whether on the new Clause which excludes the Armed Forces or, further, whether it has to be done on Clause 5.

The Deputy-Chairman: They are, of course, in Clause 5. I think we had better leave the new Clause out of consideration for a minute or two.

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps it would be convenient if on this point of Order, I merely say that officers are, in fact, in Rule 11 as well as in Rule 6. I do not think there is any difficulty. Anyhow, it can be got over, if there should be.

Mr. Benson: Will the Chancellor take these officers as under Rule 11?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Discharge of outstanding tax for years before 1943–44 in certain cases.)

Mr. Burden: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, after "section," to insert "or in the railway service."
I need hardly explain that a large number of the salaried staffs of the railways are serving in the Forces and that they have been replaced by temporary staffs. In the payment of Income Tax, the railway salaried staffs are in precisely the same position as civil servants, with insignificant exceptions. They are right up to date, in the majority of instances. I think that that is generally admitted. From the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), in the course of the Debate, it was certainly understood that any concession given to the Civil Service would be extended to the railway salaried staffs. The Clause now before the Committee concedes the case of the temporary civil servant; I claim the same concession for the railway salaried staffs. I admit that the problem is relatively small, but I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desire to carry out fully what was understood to be a promise given by him.

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend has raised what may be a small point, but it is a point of substance, and I am perfectly ready to meet him upon it. The Amendment he has upon the Paper will not do. I think he will appreciate that the arrangement as between one railway company and another varies. In some cases payments have been made and tax has been collected up to date, as in the case of the Civil Service, and in some cases the tax has been collected as from the 12 months

beginning in November, as in the case of the ordinary taxpayer under Schedule E. In other cases the taxation has not been collected until June, so that provision will have to be made, in order to meet my hon. Friend's point, for all those differences. It will take just a little time to work out a suitable Amendment, but I readily promise to propose one to meet his point fully at the Report stage. In view of that assurance, perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Burden: In view of that assurance, for which I thank the Chancellor, I have very great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry that, on my point of Order, the massive architecture of the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) was disrupted.

Mr. Benson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the Committee are likely to be in some little difficulty. I understand the hon. Gentleman proposes to move to omit Clause 6.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. We are now discussing whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Benson: Exactly, but if Clause 6 stands part, the new Clause in the name of the hon. Gentleman cannot be discussed. His purpose is obviously to substitute a new Clause for Clause 6. Where is the basic discussion of the temporary civil servant to take place; on the question, "That the Clause stand part" or on the proposed new Clause of the hon. Gentleman; or can we discuss the two matters together, or, are we to have two entirely distinct discussions?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Committee agree, we can take the discussion of the temporary civil servant now. I think it would be wise to have the discussion in such a form that, in the event of the Motion not being agreed to, we are left with the new Clause. In other words, we may discuss the two together if that is agreeable to the Committee.

Mr. Hogg: As I was saying, I was sorry indeed that the massive architecture


of my hon. Friend's argument was disrupted by a point of Order. He has now, to some extent, had his own back, but I am comforted at any rate by the reflection that the same massive architecture will be rolled into position—[Laughter]—if that is what happens to architecture—to the end that my far more humble structure may fall when it is assaulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Even now I think I hear the rumble of powerful artillery coming up to support my feeble infantry assault. The point at issue at the present time is whether Clause 6 is to stand part of the Bill. Admittedly I am opposing the Clause as a preliminary to asking for the Second Reading of a new Clause, and I ask the Committee to take the broadest possible view of the opposition to Clause 6. It may be that the Clause which my hon. Friends and myself, after consultation, have proposed to put in place of Clause 6 is not an ideal one. It may be that it is open to difficulties which we do not foresee at the present time, but the question before the Committee is whether Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. Should this matter go to a Division I should hope to bring with me into the Lobby all those who believe that the Government's Clause 6 is a bad Clause 6 and all who think there is a genuine grievance of some kind which ought to be remedied more generously than by the methods which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. I therefore base my argument upon the broadest possible grounds.
The class affected by this particular issue is a large one. I understand there are some 700,000 temporary civil servants. Whether that be so or not, there are in addition to that class the whole class of serving soldiers, sailors and airmen, the officers and men of all the Armed Forces who are affected by the concessions which are made by the Government and, as I shall submit to the Committee, affected unjustly by these concessions. What is the nature of the grievance complained of? I think it can be stated in very simple language. The country as a whole is in process, under this Bill, of switching over from the old system of pay in arrear to the new system of Pay-as-you-earn. That is the broad position. It was observed at once that if we had to switch over from one system to the other either

the country would suffer from a double collection of tax—I do not say double payment—within the same period, or it must be given a discharge of tax in order to prevent a double collection. That was the dilemma which presented itself to the Government when it sought to benefit the whole country by payment-as-you-earn. It was found, I think perfectly rightly and inevitably, that it was wholly impracticable to adopt the former alternative of double collection. It therefore became necessary to ease the burden by granting a partial discharge. That was the position.
This situation arose in respect of the class I have defined which is affected by this Clause, this very broad class: Years ago, when they first entered the employment of the Crown they had to switch over from paying in arrear to paying as you earn, and again the Government were faced with the same alternative of a double collection of tax or else a partial discharge. In these circumstances the Government, realising that the class although numerous, was not sufficiently large to effect a major political agitation, chose the former alternative, which they deliberately rejected when they had to deal with the country as a whole. They chose the alternative of a double collection of tax, sometimes referred to as a double payment, because it is a double payment over a period of 12 months, although it is true that in the end, by the time they are dead, they do not have to pay twice in respect of the same amount of income earned during a given period. It ought to be said on their behalf to-day that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that if it be right to discharge the main tax-paying classes from their tax on the switch over from payment in arrear to payment as you earn, it is right also to do it for the temporary civil servants and the serving officers and men of the Forces.

Mr. W. J. Brown: And the permanent civil servants.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member's massive architecture, though useful, may sometimes be a trifle cumbrous if used as an offensive weapon. The first contention is that if you do it for the rest of the country it is only right to do it for these people. The second contention is that when the temporary civil servant entered


Government service and had to undergo—unjustly, I think, it must now be admitted—the hard burden of a double collection of tax, he was buoyed up with a natural, proper and legitimate expectation of better times to come. As the law then stood he would be compensated for his double collection of tax when the temporary service with the Crown came to an end. He would have a tax holiday, because having switched over from payment in arrear to payment as you earn when he entered the service of the Crown he would switch over from payment as you earn to payment in arrear on leaving the service of the Crown.
Therefore, the class affected no doubt bore their troubles fairly philosophically with the thought "What we will lose on the swings to-day we will gain on the roundabouts to-morrow." Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case, because the roundabouts are controlled by my right hon. Friend, and he has stopped them working. He has stopped them working in this way: He has proposed for the whole country that they shall go on to Pay-as-you-earn before the temporary civil servant goes back to payment in arrear, so the promised holiday never takes place. There is to be no holiday at all. They are not merely to be treated unjustly as compared with the rest of the community in the switch-over but they are to suffer the additional injustice that the compensation which they were originally entitled to expect has been removed by the fact that the rest of the community has been given a benefit. The second contention is, therefore, that it is wholly unjust that this limited class should have taken away from them a reasonable expectation of interest on which they were entitled to rely simply because my right hon. Friend has given a benefit to the rest of the community. They are being actually penalised as a result of this Measure. That is the second contention.
On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman presented the case against these two contentions which I have attempted to summarise. He did not, as I understood him, attempt to deny their justice. He said "This is a legitimate grievance. Wrong has been done, or wrong will be done if the Measure is

passed in its present form, but I propose to do it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot always be expected to be just, and there is the interest of the Revenue to consider, and I propose to commit this injustice because I cannot see my way clear to avoid it." That was his argument, and he based it on these grounds. He said that the logical way in which to benefit this class would be to discharge seven-twelfths of their tax assessment of the original year in which they entered the Crown service. That would be the rightful thing, because it would put them on the same level as the rest of the community. If I understood his argument correctly he went on to say that he would be only too glad if this solution were open to him but he said "It is quite impossible. The ingenuity of the Revenue—so long engaged upon screwing money out of the taxpayer—is baffled by this insoluble problem of how to find out what that rate of assessment was when they first entered the service of the Crown. It is too difficult for them; the great powers of the tax-grinding machinery have broken on this tiny obstacle; it is too baffling; they cannot manage it."
Why cannot they manage it? Apparently, it would be quite easy in respect of the temporary civil servants, who are the main class we are discussing, but when we come to deal with the serving officers and men we come to the insuperable difficulty that some are abroad, the records for the assessment of the year in question are difficult to find, they are distributed over a number of Army commands, we cannot get them, we do not know what the sum would be, we are baffled and so we must commit an injustice. I, personally, do not find that argument altogether convincing. I do not believe the power of the Crown is too small to deal with so trifling a difficulty. Of course, we must accept the arguments of the Government, but we have to remember when we do so that these arguments have been presented before. We cannot forget that at every stage in this Measure we have been confronted with insuperable difficulties of administration. For years we were asking for Pay-as-you-earn for the community as a whole, but no, it would involve sacrificing nine months' revenue, and it was extremely difficult to devise a method of


collection. It was not until the House insisted that something should be done that a reluctant Revenue took the trouble to do it.
We have great confidence in the Revenue, we believe that when they are pressed they can solve these difficult problems which seem to baffle our inexpert minds in this House. Over a period of years, when they have been compelled they have always acted in the way we have wanted. I suggest that the proper course is to compel them to do as we want even, if necessary, by means of an adverse vote. For the purposes of this argument I am prepared to concede the Chancellor's point. I shall say that admittedly it is true that for a very small number of serving officers and men it would be difficult or impossible to secure the figures which the Chancellor says he cannot secure. But does that prove his case? Is it to be held in this Committee that the fact that you cannot do justice to two men is to compel you to deny justice to 98? That seems to me the logical conclusion of his argument on that point. As far as I can see there is no insuperable difficulty with regard to the vast majority of the class affected, no insuperable difficulty with regard to the temporary civil servant himself, nor with regard to serving officers and men; only a small proportion whose records are not in this country are affected by this baffling problem. I am bound to say that even if one accepts the problem as impossible of solution one would have been tempted to rejoice over the 99 that could be saved rather than over the poor unfortunate who has perished.
The Treasury is seldom generous to us, but it is our duty to be generous to the Treasury. Let us assume that they are right, and that it is necessary to rope in this great multitude of unfortunates, in order to give comfort to the souls of the very few. We have, at any rate, proposed a solution which we think ought to command a certain amount of respect. We are willing to say to the Chancellor, in the Clause which we hope to move, should Clause 6 be negatived, "Very well, if it is not convenient for you to take the year of assessment, why not take the current year?" The difficulty does not occur about the current year. It is very simple to find out about any officer or man, about any civil servant, abroad

or at home, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to extract from his pocket in the current year. If it is not, I should like to know how my right hon. Friend proposes to extract it. It is a case of the swings and the roundabouts—one of the great maxims of political experience. The Chancellor may lose a little on some of the incomes which have increased in the interim, but he will gain a little on some of the incomes which have, unfortunately, diminished a little in the interim. What is good enough for other people is good enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That surely is logical.
Let us suppose that, on the balance of the swings and the roundabouts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the loser. Is that so very unjust? I submit not. On the contrary, this solution—admittedly not the only one—proposed by ourselves, in favour of the temporary civil servants, is not, in its existing form, proposed for the benefit of the temporary civil servants at all, but is proposed as a concession to the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is proposed for the convenience of the Crown, which has got itself so muddled with the records that it cannot trace them back a few years. If the concession is made for the convenience of my right hon. Friend, it is not so unjust for my right hon. Friend to be the loser by a few thousands of pounds on the balance. It is rough justice: it is the sort of justice that we are always getting; and it does a great deal more for the subject than the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to do. One other argument, I understood, was in my right hon. Friend's mind. That was that if he did not withstand the temporary civil servants it would be impossible for him to withstand the permanent civil servants. I was impressed by his caution. Now he can fling that caution to the winds. Rightly or wrongly—I know that one hon. Member of the Committee thinks wrongly—we have withstood the permanent civil servants, so we need not bother about them any more; we are fighting on a united front for the temporaries. It is a pity that the solution which has, in fact, been proposed under the Clause we are actually discussing should be subjected to so violent a criticism as I feel will inevitably be poured on it in this Committee. The alternative, put forward by my hon. Friends and myself, may not be perfect,


but, however bad it may be, it will stand very favourable comparison with that in the name of my right hon. Friend.
What is the proposal in Clause 6? It is that if on 6th April, 1944, a person is in Crown employment on that date, and there remains unpaid by him any Income Tax under Schedule E for the previous year or the previous years, he gets a certain discharge. The proposal which we are discussing is one by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to penalise those who have paid their taxes and to benefit those who have left them unpaid. Of course, this is familiar Treasury practice. We have known for years that the way to avoid paying your Income Tax was to accumulate vast quantities of unpaid tax, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be most generous. The larger the amount, the better. A £30,000 indebtedness to the Treasury is a great advantage in dealing with His Majesty's Government. The paltry 5s. goes to the police court, but the £30,000 is the subject of a favourable composition. It is not unnatural that the right hon. Gentleman's mind is so debauched by the reckless extravagance in which his Department has indulged for years with the money of the citizens, that he should have proposed an extension of it in this Bill, but I doubt whether the Committee would favour an innovation enshrining for the first time in the Statute Book, and giving permanent effect to, a practice which has always been the subject of grievance, frequently of complaints, and often of scandal. We shall, under this Clause, let off the people who will not, or have not, paid, and do nothing whatever for the people who have paid.
The Treasury is very often penny wise and pound foolish. It may be that, under the alternative—and I am not persuaded that it is the only alternative—we propose to offer, the Treasury would be the poorer by a few thousands of pounds—who knows? But I believe that if you proceed upon an immoral basis of taxation, penalising the just and doing good to the unjust, though it may have Biblical sanction in the parable of the unjust steward, ultimately you will not benefit the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. I resist this Clause. I resist it on the ground that it does not remedy an admitted grievance; I resist it on the

ground that difficulties in the way of remedying that grievance have not been satisfactorily proved by my right hon. Friend; I resist it on the ground that there exist reasonable alternatives, one of which, at least, is on the Order Paper; and I resist it on the ground that the compromise which is in fact proposed is one which does small credit to the Exchequer and introduces a vicious principle into the administration of Revenue law.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to establish two points. The first is that in this area which we are now considering what is proposed under this Bill will be productive of great hardship. I could quote hundreds of letters which I have received on this subject, but I want to give only one or two examples. Here is the case of a temporary administrative officer, released from a post at a university to assist more directly in the war effort. When he came into the Civil Service, in 1940, he owed £90 in respect of his last year of outside earnings. He was told that he would have to go on to Pay-as-you-earn, and so in the first year he was liable for the £90 outstanding, and to his month-by-month deductions from his earnings in the Civil Service. Like most workers in universities, who are grossly underpaid, he had no large balance to pay this £90. He went to the bank manager to borrow the money, and the bank manager advanced it only on the assurance that later the man would get a tax holiday—otherwise, his credit would not have been good enough. So, having borrowed the £90 and paid the double taxation, he is now told by the Chancellor that the compensatory tax holiday will not be forthcoming.
Take the case of two men, one entering the Civil Service and the other not. The one entered the Civil Service on 1st November, 1942. His tax payable on the 1942–43 assessment, payable in full before 31st March, 1943, was £126 2s. 6d. The 1943–44 assessment, payable for the year ending 31st March, 1944, was again £126 2s. 6d. That is a total of £252 5s. Compare him with the man earning exactly the same money who stayed in the outside occupation.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Are these real-life cases?

Mr. Brown: Yes. In the case of the second man, the tax payable will be


£126 2s. 6d. for the 1942–43 assessment, and then he will be liable for the 1943–44 assessment, amounting to five-twelfths of £126 2s. 6d., or £52 11s., so that his total taxation in that period will be £178 13s. 6d., as compared with the £252 5s. paid by a man in an exactly similar position coming into the public service as a temporary officer. The difference is £73 11s. 6d., of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has robbed that man. Up to now the Chancellor has only borrowed the money, but now he makes it plain that he will not return it. What does he propose? All he proposes is that when we come to 6th April, 1944, if a fellow has any tax outstanding on his outside earnings before he came into the Civil Service, that will be excused.
Let us see what difference that makes. Most of the temporary officers of the Civil Service were recruited, not this year or last year, but in the first two years of the war. Out of 350,000 temporary civil servants, probably 325,000 do not now owe a penny in respect of their outside earnings. The overwhelming majority of them, in return for this substantial loss of anything from £100 to £200, will not get a penny back. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was absolutely right in saying that where the Chancellor does pay benefit under this Bill he pays it to the least worthy, not to the most worthy. Those who have been most just in paying their tax are least likely to have sums outstanding and those who have been most backward in paying are more likely to have sums outstanding. In response to the plea for the 350,000, the Chancellor gives us nothing for 325,000. And to the rest he gives less than what he has taken and gives it in inverse ratio to their tax worthiness from the Exchequer point of view. I think that to be a grave mistake. I cannot conceive that this Committee can regard that as an answer to the case. I submit that, after all these are our servants, and they look to us for justice. What reason does the Chancellor give us for this attitude? His reason was that he thought about it, and thought about it, and thought about it and that this was the best he could do. When I heard that I was amazed. The Chancellor has the widest experience of the mechanics of government of probably any man alive in Britain—40 years' experience, with occasional help and advice from me.

An Hon. Member: You put him where he is.

Mr. Brown: Forty years' experience, and, if I may be allowed to say so, a first rate brain, though I sometimes think, that his bowels of compassion are somewhat under-developed! As a result of this first-class mental equipment and long years of experience, for years past, whenever a problem cropped up in the Government which was more than ordinarily difficult, the word has gone out "Send for the Chancellor." And he has been sent for and in due season has produced the appropriate solution. Now, Sir, we witness the collapse of that great brain! The right hon. Gentleman has solved problems from Ireland to India, and from every quarter of Britain and the globe, but he collapses completely in face of the mechanics of this little problem of adjusting a temporary clerk's Income Tax. We are told that Homer sometimes nods. This is Jehovah snoring! We do not want to divide against this Bill, but we really must have a square deal. If we can only impress on the Government that the Lobby is the only way to get justice, then let us go into the Lobby, and show this country that, united as we may be behind the Prime Minister in the prosecution of the war, we are equally united to see that our own servants in the public service get a square deal, and are not let down.

Sir J. Anderson: I wish I could offer the Committee as great a treat in the matter of oratory as it has just had from my hon. Friend. When this question Of the temporary civil servants, or the temporary Crown servants—we must always keep in mind the wider category—first came up, I admitted, as the Committee will recall, that we were face to face with a grievance which was a real grievance, and, in some degree, a legitimate grievance. When I made those observations, I knew perfectly well that I should be encouraging some hope that a way would be found of meeting the grievance. I am not so simple as to have thought otherwise. But I did call attention to the complexities of the matter, and some hon. Members, even some hon. and learned Members, were disposed to make light of what I said. I did not exaggerate. The matter is, in fact, highly complex, and I shall show in a moment, by reference to the remedy that has been proposed


by my hon. Friend behind me, how difficult it is, in the realm of tax law, with which we are now concerned, to find a satisfactory remedy. Let us just see what this Amendment, to which, I am sure, very much thought and high intellectual capacity has been applied, does. I do not say this merely for the sake of criticising. It is necessary that the Committee should realise what it is with which we have to deal.
In the first place, the Clause which is suggested as an alternative to Clause 6 in the Bill, has quite clearly been drawn with the Civil Service primarily in view. I suggest to the Committee that the case of the men serving temporarily in the Armed Forces is no less important, and I must point out how much more favourable is Clause 6 of the Bill, on which my hon. Friend behind poured such scorn, enjoying himself so much in the process, than this new Clause which it is proposed to substitute. We must examine what Clause 6 does in regard to the hardest case of all, probably, the case of a man who went from a good position in private employment into the Armed Forces at a very small rate of remuneration, not liable to tax at all. The fact is that, during the new employment in the Forces in the majority of those cases where the previous pay was not made up, the Revenue authorities have simply allowed the debt from previous employment to stand over. There was no alternative; the man had no resources. I do not claim it as a virtue on anybody's part, but it did, in fact, stand over. What this Clause does—and its effect should not be underestimated—is to discharge the outstanding liability. Against that, which, in these particular cases was generous, and rightly generous, in my opinion, what the amending Clause does is to discharge seven-twelfths of any liability in respect of the emoluments of the person in question in his capacity of Crown servant, that is, perhaps, as a member of the Armed Forces not liable to Income Tax at all. The thing will not do; most obviously, it will not.
I was puzzled at first to know why my hon. Friend and those associated with him had selected for the purpose of their Clause the basis of tax in the current year and not taken the logical course, as he recognised in his speech, of the over-

Lapping tax in the first year of Crown service. My hon. Friend explained by reference to what I said about the difficulty and complications, but I did not then merely mean the difficulty of ascertaining in due course the amount of the tax that had been paid in the first year of Crown employment. That is on record and can be ascertained, though in a number of cases the deductions are made all over the world—this is literally true—and it takes some time to get the records together. But that is not the only source of complication and difficulty.
If you are to deal with this matter, as we are asked to deal with it, on its merits and in cases where there might be real hardship and injustice, if you like, you have to look at every kind of case that comes into the picture. You have the man who went from paid employment into the Crown service. That is one type of case. You have, on the other hand, the man who went from no employment at all into Crown service. In his case, there is no overlap. He was not paying Income Tax, but begins to pay when his Crown service begins, and there is no hardship at all in that case. Somewhat similar is the case of a man who enters Crown service having been an Income Tax payer under Schedule D, such as a doctor in practice, who goes into the Civil Service or the Armed Forces. He has an overlapping payment; but he gets his tax holiday when his Crown service comes to an end. There is no case there for doing what the alternative Clause would do—provide for remission of tax. Then there is the case of a man who enters Crown employment during the war and is retained permanently. His position is in no way different from the position of anyone who has entered the Service at any time in the past in a permanent capacity. The case, in equity, for making some repayment to him cannot be established. There are other complications. There is, for example, the one—which is not inconsiderable—that people who entered the Civil Service temporarily prior to November, 1940, entered it under a different régime of taxation altogether. They entered before the method of deduction from monthly payments as from the 1st November had been introduced. In their case, the liability was to pay half-yearly and the overlap in these cases is quite different from what it is in the case


of those who entered the Crown service after November, 1940. I think that was the date.
I have said, I think, enough to show that the matter is, in fact, highly complicated, if you are to deal with it by way of Amendments of revenue law, and I think I have shown also that Clause 6 is, in fact, much more generous to a very deserving class of case than the alternative which has been proposed. But there is, in my view, a very grave objection in principle, even if the complications to which I have referred did not exist, for dealing with this by way of amendment of the Revenue law. I mentioned the matter when dealing with the case of the permanent civil servants, when I said that every time a reform is introduced some anomaly is created, and it is destructive of the principles on which Revenue law must be based to have to go back and reopen closed transactions and accept liability for repaying revenue which at the time it was due was lawfully due. I should be very sorry indeed, as an old Revenue man, to be the first to introduce a principle of that kind into Revenue law. May I point out that the situation that arises here is not entirely new? It has happened before that the House of Commons, with its eyes open, has changed the law with regard to Income Tax in such a way as to deprive people of facilities to pay, or of an easement in payment, which they have previously enjoyed and to the continuance of which they felt entitled to look forward. Take, for example, the change made not very many years ago, when the arrangements for collection of Schedule A were changed by this House, when payment was exacted in full on 1st January instead of by two half-yearly instalments. When that change was made many people found themselves under the necessity of having to pay 18 months' tax over a period of about six months.
When I have said all that and, I hope, explained fairly adequately the difficulty that I have seen—and that I still see—in dealing with this matter by way of a provision in this Bill or any other Bill of the kind, I have not come quite to the end of my story. I do recognise this element of hardship. I am anxious, as a man who has been in the public service for 40 years, as my hon. Friend was so unkind as to remind me, that people who

come into the service of the State in time of great emergency, not thinking of their personal interests, to give the best service they can, should not go out with a bad taste in their mouths. I have decided that, as I cannot find a remedy in this Bill, I will seek a remedy elsewhere. I am prepared now to say that I will see to it that arrangements are made which will have the effect that temporary Crown servants of all kinds, civil servants, and members of the Armed Forces, where two conditions are satisfied, where there has been an overlapping tax payment and where the tax holiday to which they were entitled to look forward has been withdrawn from them as a consequence of this legislation, shall receive a cash payment sufficient to relieve them of their disability.
I do not think I can really say anything fairer than that. It cannot be done here; and in the way in which I contemplate doing it, the complications will be much less troublesome than they would be under something which had to be provided in legislation in precise terms. I have made this statement, in terms which I have carefully considered—they are precise and free from ambiguity—of what I intend to do. What I contemplate, although I do not want to be absolutely tied, is that the matter should be dealt with in much the same way as the post-service credits to Service men are dealt with—a cash payment on a corresponding occasion. And I would add, that the matter will have to come to this House, because I shall have to secure a provision which will dispense the Revenue authorities from the necessity of collecting Income Tax on the payments in question. But exactly the same position will arise in regard to the credits of the men in the Fighting Forces, and it will be very convenient probably if the House were called upon to deal with the two matters at one and the same time. The assurance I have given is precise and free from ambiguity, and I think it does remove any great hardship.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sure that I am speaking for the Committee as a whole when I say that we welcome very sincerely the statements made in the last part of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not believe that there was anyone but who felt that, as the Bill stands, it would have


been the creation of a hardship and that it would have been an injustice that would have rankled in the minds of some of the most patriotic people in the country and would have left, as the Chancellor himself inferred, a nasty taste in the mouths of those who had done the work which their country had required them to do. If I might utilise a metaphor employed by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, we have seen Homer awakened from his sleep and apply the full genius of his mind to a solution of this problem. We know the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House to be an honourable man and that when he says a thing he means it, and when he means a thing he does it. I do not go quite as far as to say that what he intends to do is precisely as clear in our minds as it is in his own mind. The words he used were, "relieve them of their disability," and precisely what that means I do not know. At any rate, we shall no doubt know hereafter and I am prepared to give the Chancellor, who has come down on this side, in view of our past experience of him, the benefit of the doubt, and feel sure that it will adequately meet the case.
With regard to the salaried staff—this is a small but important point—on the railways, the Chancellor has already recognised in a previous Clause the justice of the claim put forward on their behalf by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. If the Chancellor will look into the matter in regard to this as well, I am sure he will find there is a precise similarity between some of the cases of the salaried staffs of the railway service and those of the temporary civil servants. In view of what he has done on previous Amendments I feel confident that, if he applies his mind to this question, he will provide some remedy for their case. There are two types of people. There are those who entered the salaried service from outside employment and those who came up into the salaried staff from a wage grade at some time during the war. I am convinced that, if he applies his mind to them, he will find some remedy for them equal in character to that which he is proposing with regard to the servants of the Crown. I can only conclude by saying once more, that the Committee is grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his action. We believe that it has been taken not merely in order to please a certain small section of the community, but to please the whole

community, which desires to see justice done and no hardship created which could be removed by a Member of His Majesty's Government.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I would like to express appreciation of the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with what obviously was an exceedingly difficult problem. I would like to express to him my own gratitude and the gratitude of the very large number of civil servants whom I have the honour to represent, and I would also like to express thanks on behalf of, though not representing them, the members of the Service to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. I certainly accept the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing full well that it will be honoured not only in the letter but in the spirit. He has dealt with a very difficult problem and he has dealt with it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said, not because it affected only a small section of the community, but because it was an injustice which the whole community realised was being inflicted upon one section.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I would like to join in expressing thanks for the very valuable concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and also for his sense of justice in his desire to remove what he really felt was a legitimate grievance. It would help, I think, if we could have an explanation from the Financial Secretary on one point. When the time comes for this concession to be made, will it be necessary for individual applications to be made to the Inland Revenue authorities, or will the assistance be granted whether or not an application is made?

Mr. Hogg: As I was, perhaps, responsible for this Debate, I would like to express my appreciation of what has been done. I would have asked for an explanation on the lines of that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Harvey), but so far as I am concerned I think we can afford to wait until the Chancellor's statement. The moral to be drawn from this Debate is that real, concrete results can be obtained by pressing the Government in this Committee and in the House of Commons, and that the Government derive


their strength and not weakness from making concessions to the House of Commons as they have generously done to-day.

Mr. Assheton: There are two points to which I would like to refer before we pass from this Clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked about the railway companies. We must talk to the railway companies about this matter and they may well wish to consider whether they should make some similar sort of arrangements for their employees. But beyond that I cannot go at this stage. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) I am afraid that I cannot answer it at the present time. We have not sufficiently worked out the plans on which this is to be operated but in due course I hope that we shall be able to give the reply.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed.

REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT [MONEY].

Resolution reported: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the reinstatement in civil employment of certain persons who are, or have been, in the service of the Crown or in a civil defence force, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of monies provided by Parliament:

(a) to members of Reinstatement Committees appointed under the said Act, to the umpire and any deputy umpires appointed under that Act, to persons appointed to sit as assessors and to any officers and servants of the Minister of Labour and National Service employed for the purposes of the said Act, such remuneration and allowance as the said Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;
(b) to persons attending as parties or witnesses before such Committees, the said umpire or any such deputy umpire, allowances in accordance with such scales as the said Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;

(c) any expenses incurred by or on behalf of the said Minister in the taking by him, or on his behalf, of any civil or criminal proceedings under the said Act."

Resolution agreed to.

REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Obligation of employers to reinstate former employees.)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from "applies," to "makes," in line 8.
It seems to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), whose name is also attached to this Amendment, and to myself that it is wrong to limit the application of this Clause to a specific class such as that to which it will be limited if these words remain in the Clause. As I see it, the provisions would not apply to anybody who had already left the Service or indeed to those who might leave the Service between now and the coming into force of the provisions of this Bill. Since the object of the whole Bill is to look after the interests of all those who have served in the Forces, it seems to me that so narrow a limit as that is unfair and therefore the interests of people who have been in the Service and may come out before the end of the war should be safeguarded.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I would ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. It is bound up with Clause 13 and, if he looks at that, he will see that it
has effect in relation to a person whose war service ended not earlier than 26 weeks before the commencement of this Act.
So we do include in this Bill everybody whose war service has not been terminated 26 weeks before this Bill comes into force. Moreover, under Clause 12, anyone who has come out of the Armed Forces, and has been directed by the Minister of Labour into any civilian work, has his reinstatement rights kept in cold storage. Therefore, if they have been directed, they will come under the operations of this Bill when they leave that service to which they have been directed


That only leaves the small number of people who have come out of the Forces and have not been directed to other work. In the past, they have not only had the original Clause in the National Service Acs to rest on, but they have had no difficulty in getting work, if they have wished to get it, owing to the stringent condition of the labour market. Therefore, I cannot think there is any hardship under this Bill and I think we have met every case which might give rise to difficulty.

Major Manningham-Buller: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the case of the last category of persons to whom he has referred, those who come out of the Forces and find employment for themselves without being directed by the Ministry of Labour. It may be the case that there is no difficulty in people finding work in the national interest at this particular moment, but this Bill is looking ahead to reinstatement in civil employment after the war, and unless some provision is made in this Bill for this category, those persons may find themselves suffering a great disadvantage at the end of the war if the hopes of full employment are not immediately realised. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider this point, to see if some right of reinstatement can be preserved for those who return to civil life and employment in the national interest, to which they have not been directed, and who may want re-instatement in their own employment when this emergency comes to an end.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am afraid I cannot accept what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. This Bill deals with reinstatement in civil employment not only after the war but whenever people come out of war service and I think he must have misunderstood that. These people have had reinstatement rights under the original National Service Acts, which they have been able to exercise, or not, as the case may be. It seems unreasonable, whether that right has been exercised or not, that they should have other rights given to them.

Sir A. Southby: It is hardly a fair presentment of the case for the hon. Gentleman to say "If these people have exercised their rights or not." Many of

them have not been able to get back to their previous jobs because they have disappeared completely. It is not a question of their being able to exercise their right to go back to certain employment, and because it is only a small number it does not seem reasonable that they should be treated less fairly or justly than anyone else. Many of them have come out of the Forces during the war period. They have not been directed, they have not exercised their rights under previous provisions. They have found jobs for themselves. Therefore, it does not seem to me reasonable that they should be penalised and put in a category which is not going to be benefited by the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Lewis Jones: The argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman means that, if he got his way, a man who has left the Army and found employment very favourable to himself and who has not applied to his previous employer under the rights of the 1939 and 1941 Acts, and has remained in employment for a period of perhaps five years, or six months after the termination of the war, can then go back to his employer and expect that employer to dismiss a man in order to reinstate him. That is asking too much, and I hope the Minister will refuse to accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I think we might discuss the next two Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) together.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out from "practicable," to "in," in line 22, and to insert, "for the former employer so to do."
This Amendment, and the following Amendment in my name—in line 25, to leave out "in his case"—seek to get some clarity into the first three lines of Sub-section (1, b). I must admit that I am in some doubt as to what they mean, and I feel that any Reinstatement Committee will be in considerable difficulty in determining what factors they should take into account in deciding what is reasonable and practicable. I understood from what was said on the Second Reading that the object of this Clause was that the position of the employer should be considered, that is, the Committee should consider


whether it is reasonable and practicable for the employer to do this or not. If that be so, then the words of this Amendment make that much more clear, and it is important that it should be stated clearly in the Bill what factors are to be taken into account in determining what is reasonable and practicable, because it will assist the Committee to carry out their purpose. If it is left uncertain, you will get all sorts of rulings from different committees, and it will be a very long process to get any sort of uniformity out of the decisions of umpires. As a matter of interest, I looked at the definition of the word "reasonable" in Stroud's "Judicial Dictionary." It was singularly helpful, because it started off in these words:
It would be unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word reasonable. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the times and circumstances in which he thinks.
It seems to me that unless this Committee lays down some general indication to the Reinstatement Committees as to the angle from which they are to look at this problem, you may get different committees acting on entirely different and opposed principles.

Mr. McCorquodale: When reading the original words I thought I understood what they meant and I regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds such difficulty in doing so. I think they are clearer than the words he has chosen—if he does not mind my suggesting that—chiefly for the following reason. These two paragraphs are possibly two of the most important in the whole Bill. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment would make paragraph (b) refer to paragraph (a), so that paragraph (a) could not possibly be read by itself. I think it is desirable each paragraph should be as self-contained as possible. For that reason I prefer the drafting in the Bill. I do not think there is anything in the point as to whether "shall be taken into employment" means that the employer's position would not be referred to. I am afraid that I cannot follow that argument. The words:
If it is not reasonable and practicable that the applicant should be taken into employment
surely refer as much to the employer as to the applicant. Therefore, I would ask the Committee to resist the Amendment and keep to the wording of the Bill.

Major Manningham-Buller: I fear that I cannot have made my point plain to the Parliamentary Secretary because it is quite obvious that paragraph (b) only applies if paragraph (a) cannot be fulfilled owing to the conditions. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has missed the point of this Amendment entirely. The words as they stand may mean something, but what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say on the Second Reading was that the matter would be looked at from the employer's angle, and the words, "reasonable and practicable" would be judged by the Committee as meaning whether it was reasonable and practicable for the Committee and the employer so to do. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the point. If it is to be considered only on the basis of whether it is reasonable and practicable to the applicant, it seems to me to open very wide possibilities indeed

Sir Frank Sanderson: I rise only to say that I could not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. The words in the Bill are understood by all reasonable and practical business men, and it is better that the wording should be in the present form, rather than in the nebulous form suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): We will, of course, look into what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I find the Bill easier to understand than his speech, but that may be my fault. With regard to the question of looking at it from the point of view of the employer, I think you must look at it from the point of view of both applicant and employer. It is to be reasonable and practicable in all the circumstances, including the position of the employer and the applicant. Last week we were discussing under the Disabled Persons Act the position of somebody who has been maimed in the war, but apart from that Act, it might be perfectly legitimate for the Committee to consider whether a man after the war was able to do the work which he had done previously.

Sir Arnold Gridley: In view of what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend, I would like to ask whether the Minister would be prepared to accept, at the end of paragraph (b) these simple words:
and in the circumstances of the former employer.


That makes it perfectly clear that the circumstances both of the applicant and of the employer should be taken into account, as my hon. and learned Friend said they must be. Paragraphs (a) and (b) at the moment are certainly not clear in that respect, and that is why the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend was put on the Order Paper. I would ask, in view of what the Attorney-General has just said, whether the Government will be prepared to consider the addition of those words which I have suggested?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): We have given a lot of thought to this Clause and I am sorry that we cannot accept the Amendment. If I put into the Bill the words which the hon. and gallant Member has suggested the applicant will immediately say, "The Bill has been loaded against me." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, you have to remember that the people making the great sacrifices in this war are the applicants, the men who are coming back. I do not want to take into account what is reasonable for the employer and leave the applicant out of consideration. All the facts have to be taken into account. As I have just said, I do not want to put words into the Bill which imply that the dice are loaded on one side or the other.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out, "by the applicant," and to insert, "to him."
This Amendment is to clarify the position and we hope it will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 6, leave out "he" and insert "the applicant."—[Mr. Bevin.]

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, after "has," to insert:
on account of the terms and conditions thereof.
This Amendment covers more or less the same ground as the previous Amendment of mine and I need not take up much time in dealing with it. It seems to me that the insertion of these words would make the Bill clearer. I want to make it quite clear at this point. I, for

one, wish to avoid creating the impression that anything in this Bill is loading the dice one way or the other, particularly against the applicant. I do not think anyone who read this part of the Bill with these words in could possibly gain that impression. He would say, "I am entitled to refuse the job offered to me if the terms and conditions are unreasonable." If it is left vague, as it is now, the applicant might be in doubt as to what he could or could not do and he would not know what decision might be arrived at, if the matter was brought before the Reinstatement Committee.

The Attorney-General: We think it would be a pity to insert these words because they might suggest that that was the only cause on which a man could reasonably refuse. A proper and equally usual provision is where, although the offer is made, the man is suffering from some temporary incapacity and is not in a position to accept the job. We think it better not to start putting in one reason or another because, once you do that, it suggests that that is the only reason.

Major Manningham-Buller: Having heard what my right hon. and learned Friend has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 20, and to insert:
or reasonably believes that he has reasonable cause for not taking it.
This is a clarifying Amendment. On studying the Bill, we found that the words there did not quite meet all the cases that might arise. A common case would be that of a worker not being able to take a job offered to him owing to temporary incapacity. In such a case, "refusing to take it" could hardly describe attitude. Therefore, we think these words will more adequately meet the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. Southby: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "six," and to insert "twelve."
It is only by accident that my name is to this Amendment and to the next Amendment, in page 2, line 30, to leave


out "six," and to insert "eighteen." I think the obligation of the employer should be extended for a longer period than six months. Nobody knows what the conditions will be when hostilities come to an end. There may be various reasons why a man takes a long time to settle down and I think we owe it to the people who come back from war service to give them a much longer time in which to look round. The employers' obligation is accepted; it cannot make any real difference to them whether the period is six or 12 months but to a man making an application, it might make all the difference in the world. Many men will have been away for long periods and should have a longer time than six months. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Commander Galbraith: We are in a difficulty in this matter because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has his name to this Amendment, which states that the period should be 12 months, and also to the following Amendment, which states that the period should be 18 months. I cannot see why there should be any date at all. The obligation here would naturally come to an end on the fifth Monday after the last man had been demobilised. I cannot see why there should be any date, although I would like to support my hon. and gallant Friend in stating that the date should be as far ahead as possible. Men may be far away from home, in hospital for a long time, and we do not want any men to lose their reinstatement rights, even if the number is very small.

Mr. Naylor: I support the Amendment before the Committee and would give this additional reason why it should be accepted. Many industries are of a seasonable character, that is to say, they are very busy for a few months of the year and later become slack. Sometimes the seasons alternate in the different quarters of the year. That means that if a man is to be employed for only six months, he might possibly be taken on during the busy season and be put off when the slack period arrives. He would have a much fairer chance if given 12 months instead of six. In view of what I know to be the Minister's experience of seasonal

work, I hope he will allow the Amendment to be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Molson: I do not follow the argument of the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) who was, I think, referring to the duration of time during which a man has to be employed. What this Amendment does do is to limit the period, at the end of the expiration of the emergency, when the obligations of this Bill will be put into operation. I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment because when the Measure was in operation employers would feel no security for retaining a man and a man in a job would be liable to find a man returning from the Services with a prior right. I think it is most undesirable that this general state of uncertainty and unrest should be kept in existence for longer than six months.

Mr. Naylor: I was under a misapprehension and I am much obliged to the hon. Member for pointing it out.

Captain Prescott: I think my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has cleared up a misunderstanding. The six months' period is the period after which the Bill shall be enforced after the termination of the emergency.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) have drawn the attention of the Committee to what the Amendment really means. Sub-section (2, b) states that:
In no case shall the former employer be under any obligation to take the applicant into his employment after six months have elapsed from the end of the present emergency.
The end of the emergency of the last war took place late in 1921, or early in 1922. It is the time when everybody has been demobilised. We chose the time of six months after the end of that period because everybody would have been demobilised and would have been able to establish his reinstatement rights and get to work. Later in the Schedule there is a Clause which states that when a case has been argued before a Reinstatement Committee and the man has not got back into employment his right is carried over.


I think we have allowed for everybody in this Measure and I hope the Committee will resist the Amendment.

Sir A. Southby: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Mode of making, time for making and duration of applications for reinstatement.)

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, to leave out from "beginning," to "and," in line 45, and to insert:
on the date of discharge from or placing on the reserve of the armed forces or of the services in section six and the First Schedule specified.
This Amendment has been put down in the hope that a matter that is troubling me may be cleared up. I see, under Clauses 2 (2), that
an application under the said section shall be of no effect unless it is made during the period beginning with the end of the applicant's war service.
When you go on to see what war service means, it means definite whole-time war service. It seems to me that there are particular classes of persons who may be in some difficulty under that definition. Numbers of people in the Forces have been, in the course of the war, placed in what is known as Class W reserve and put back into civilian clothes to do particular jobs. They have ceased to be in whole-time employment in the Armed Forces but have not been directed into other employment by the Ministry of Labour, and it seems to me they will be in some doubt as to when they should apply. They may apply within four weeks of their going on to Class W reserve, and presumably they will have to go for a time and keep their right of reinstatement in their real civilian jobs alive.

The Attorney-General: I follow my hon. and gallant Friend's point, though I am not sure that it would not better arise on Clause 12 than here, nor am I quite sure whether the category of persons to whom he referred as people on the Class W reserve would be covered by the words he has used. War service is defined as

meaning whole-time service by Clause 6 (2) which itself refers to Clause 12. Clause 12 says that where a person to whom this Act applies, whose war service has ended before his whole-time service in consequence of direction or written request made by the Ministry of Labour, that has to be treated as whole-time service and his rights are put in cold storage until he is free. If my hon. Friend has a category of persons who he thinks come within the principle of that Sub-section but are not covered by it, he will perhaps amplify what he has said to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Minister and we will look at it before the Report Stage. The idea is primarily whole-time service. If, when you come out of whole-time service, you are not your own master and are put in some special job under direction, your rights with regard to your own employment are kept in cold storage and can be revived when you are free.

Major Manningham-Buller: I will try to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice a particular class who are not covered but who ought to have their rights in cold storage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Duty of applicant to state date of availability for employment.)

The Chairman: I suggest that the Committee might consider together the first four Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller)—in page 4, line 2, to leave out "is not," and insert "will not be"; in line 5, to leave out the third "the," and insert "such"; in line 7, after "given," to insert "for a date"; and in line 7, at end, to insert:
Provided that such notice states the reason for giving it after the expiry of that period.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, to leave out "is not" and to insert "will not be."
I feel some doubt as to the meaning of the proviso at the top of page 4. The object of it seems to be quite clear, that a man shall be able to notify his employer of a date on which he can take employment which is beyond the stipulated four


weeks' period, and one is fully in favour of that. The difficulty that I see is that it says:
and accordingly the notification shall not be invalid by reason only that it is given after the expiration of the said four weeks.
The employer, if he gets notice that the employee will be available after four weeks' time, and nothing more is said, will not know whether that is a bad notice, and so not binding upon him, or a good notice. The object of the Amendment is to provide that a notice given for a date after the four weeks shall specify the reason, so that the employer will know that the applicant is relying upon this proviso. It will avoid the possibility of confusion and will prevent the employer treating it as an invalid notice.

Mr. Silverman: I quite see what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind. He has made his point with great clarity and lucidity. The Bill provides for an extension of time in certain circumstances. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to do is to put an obligation on the man to insert in his notice the proviso which the Clause legislates for. I can see no useful purpose that would be served by it but I can see that if the man, who may not be able to get advice, may not be very skilled, and may not know the ways of lawyers and courts and tribunals, by some slip omits to put into his notice the proviso on which he relies, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have him lose the benefit of the proviso altogether. The only effect of the Amendment would be to put an additional difficulty in the man's way—something else that he must bear in mind, some trap into which he may fall. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says it is only in order that the employer may know why the notice is late, but the employer can always ask why he has got the notice later than the time provided for in the Clause and he can say the notice is too late. He can go to the tribunal and the man can explain that it is not really out of time because he was sick, and the tribunal can go into the facts and decide whether the proviso covers him or not. If you insist that the notice is invalid unless it contains the reason why the application is late, you have merely added a difficulty in his way which he may not have perceived, and the case that the

proviso was intended to cover may not be covered, merely because of some slip or lack of knowledge on the part of a man who is not skilled in these matters at all.

Sir A. Southby: The Amendment was not put down with any such intention. It was put down in order to protect the applicant and to see that he was not penalised for the reasons given by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. McCorquodale: I appreciate the reason why my hon. and gallant Friend put down the Amendment but the effect of it would be as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has said. The whole object of the Bill is to endeavour to help the ex-Serviceman coming back to civil life, and we do not want to do anything to hinder him in the exercise of his rights. It is true that, under the Amendment, if the applicant omitted to state the reason for the delay, he would incur a total loss of his rights under the Bill. We do not desire that. The words were very carefully drawn up to meet the case of a man who cannot fulfil his obligations immediately owing to sickness or any other reasonable cause, and I should not like to interfere with him in any way by putting him in any danger of losing his rights altogether owing to a small slip. I ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press the Amendment.

Major Manningham-Buller: I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to inform the hon. Member opposite that the Amendment was not put down with the desire of creating a trap.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert new Sub-section:
(2) The former employer shall within one week of the receipt by him of a notification that the applicant is available for employment, give notice to the applicant of the receipt thereof and shall as soon as practicable notify the applicant of the nature, terms and conditions of the employment available.
As the Bill is now drafted, an applicant may give notification to his former employer that he desires to return to his previous job. He may get no reply for three months. He then has the right to give a further notification. Speaking as


an employer, I do not want to see any employer wasting not only his own time but that of an applicant. I think it but right that there should be put upon a former employer an obligation, which is after all a very proper one on receiving an important letter, that it should be acknowledged within a day or two. I think a week is a reasonable period for the purpose. Then, when he has acknowledged the letter, it is his obligation and duty to consider where he can reinstate John Jones or Tom Smith as the case may be. Having discussed it with the foreman and works manager, he should be in a position to write without further delay and inform Tom Smith that within the next week or fortnight, or whatever the time may be, such and such a job will be available to him at such and such remuneration, and asking him if he is prepared to come back and accept the position on those terms. I can conceive of no one finding any fault with the underlying intention of the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: I have a good deal of sympathy with the intention of this Amendment. One of the difficulties, however, is the sanction if the man does not do it and how I am to enforce it. We gave a lot of thought to the employer's obligation in acknowledging applications, so as not to leave applicants high and dry and wondering what was going to happen to them. It is in a good many minds, and it ran through my hon. Friend's speech, that this applies only to wage workers, but this Bill applies to all salaried people. If the Amendment had not been put down I was going to indicate that it was my intention, in the leaflet of advice sent to applicants, to say that if they do not get a reply they should report either to the employment exchange or to the Reinstatement Committee forthwith, and we would refer the matter to that committee. I did not put it in the Bill because I did not see how I could enforce it. If the Amendment is not pressed I am willing to discuss whether there shall be some obligation on us to refer to the Reinstatement Committee within a certain time. I am willing to meet my hon. Friend between now and the Report stage to see whether we can meet the point in that way. I do not see how I can take a man to court for not replying to a letter. It would be a difficult thing to enforce, and I do not want

this thing to look farcical in the eyes of the court.

Mr. George Griffiths: I am surprised at the Minister, and I do not think he understands the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: Perhaps my hon. Friend will make it clear to me.

Mr. Griffiths: I will put my point of view. The sting in the Amendment is in the last words—
notify the applicant of the nature, terms and conditions of the employment available.
I thought that the Government were very desirous that when men came back they were to be re-employed in the same jobs they had previously or on not less favourable terms. An employer will be able to say to a man who has come back, "I have a job for you, but it is not the job you had before; somebody else is in that job; but I will give you a job and these are the terms." The terms may be 50s. a week less than the job he had before which was being filled by another man. I hope I have awakened the Minister to see that the sting is in the tail of the Amendment, and I am sorry that he has promised to consider it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will now say that the Minister sees that and that he is not prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: I was not concerned about the tail or the body. What I am concerned about is that the man shall know whether his application has been received and whether his case is being dealt with by the firm and not allowed to hang about. I understood that that was my hon. Friend's desire in moving the Amendment. Suppose the employer did notify the conditions, the applicant would still have the right to go to the Reinstatement Committee for a decision whether they were reasonable. I cannot accept the Amendment in its present form, and after I have discussed it with my hon. Friend he may be content, having heard my speech and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), with the matter being dealt with in the way I have suggested.

Mr. Butcher: We are grateful to the Minister for the promise he has made to examine this point. The Amendment might very well end with the words "receipt thereof." Many of these notifications which go to employers will


be settled by an invitation to the applicants to go along and talk the matter over. The Minister has done right to take the line he has, and I hope he will agree that one week, when employers are receiving several notifications, is not too much.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: The British Legion in Scotland is concerned about the question of notifying the employer and the applicant not receiving a reply. The suggestion of the Minister that this matter should be dealt with by administrative action by sending out a leaflet, which I hope will be in plain simple English, will meet the situation better than trying to incorporate it in the Bill.

Major Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has imagined a non-existent sting, because the whole object of the notification to the employee at an early stage is that he should not be kept hanging about for 12 or 13 weeks before knowing what job is offered to him and without having an opportunity of deciding whether it was a proper job for him to accept. If the hon. Member will read Clause I, Subsections (1, a) and (1, b) he will see that there is a considerable variety of jobs that might be offered by an employer. The employee has an opportunity of refusing them, and it is with the object of letting him know what will be offered that the latter part of the Amendment was put down.

Mr. Silverman: I can see a considerable advantage, if it is practicable, in having in the Bill an obligation on the employer to acknowledge receipt of an application. So far I am with the mover of the Amendment, but I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in putting a form of words in the Bill for which there might not be any sanction commensurate with the importance of the obligation. He has done the right thing in not accepting the Amendment and in offering to look at the point. At the same time, I do not think the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) ought to be so lightly brushed aside. I think there is something in it. It is all very well to ask Members to look at Clause 1, but it is another thing to ask applicants to read it with a legal critical eye and see whether the terms and conditions offered really are a compliance

with the Act or not. If there were an obligation on the employer, not merely to acknowledge receipt within a week, but also within a week—

Major Manningham-Buller: As soon as practicable.

Mr. Silverman: —to offer to the applicant details of work available, he might be tempted to offer him something that was not a full compliance with the man's rights, and the man might very well fall into it and take it. The Act might very well be defeated in consequence. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, in looking at this matter, will confine his attention to the simple point of the obligation of the employer to acknowledge receipt of the notice and ignore the rest of the Amendment.

Sir A. Gridley: I am sorry that the motives which have been alleged to be behind the Amendment should enter into the minds of hon. Members opposite. I can assure them that no such idea as has been put forward ever entered our heads, and I doubt whether it would enter into the heads of any employers. I refute the suggestion absolutely and utterly. With regard to the suggestion made by the Minister, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that this point is further considered. I hope, however, that, as far as is practicable, the question of reinstatement will be left for arrangement and discussion between the applicant and the employer. We shall make it a much happier reunion between the men who come back to their former jobs and employers if we leave them to settle these questions between themselves than if, by some arbitrary action on the part of the Minister or an official, the question is referred too hastily to a Reinstatement Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Obligation of employers to continue to employ reinstated employees.)

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out "twenty-six," and to insert "fifty-two."

Sir Irving Albery: On a point of Order. It occurs to me, as you


are calling this Amendment, Major Milner, that you might not be calling the next one in my name, in page 4, line 14, after "weeks," to insert:
or in cases where the customary employment terms were on a monthly or longer basis, fifty-two weeks.
If it had been called, I had intended altering the word "monthly" to "weekly." Can my Amendment be discussed with the Amendment you have called, and will you also safeguard it?

The Chairman: The two Amendments can be discussed together, and the second one will be safeguarded if necessary.

Mr. Smith: We are strongly in support of the Amendment I have moved and strongly opposed to the second one. Between the two wars there was a great improvement in the position of those engaged in administrative and managerial employment as against those engaged in manual employment. It is our desire that after this war that position should be changed. In no circumstances are we prepared to be parties to those engaged in administrative and managerial functions being put in a better position than the ordinary soldiers who return.
We believe that this Bill is a contribution to post-war stabilisation. We look upon it as a link between demobilisation and post-war employment, but it is our desire that this should be strengthened and that the promises made to our men and women serving in the Armed Forces should be implemented in full. Hon. Members who were in the House in May and June, 1939, will remember that, when the National Service Acts were passing through, the House was very strong about the promise that was being given to young men going into training. If I remember rightly the promise was based on the fact that the House was very concerned about the large number of very young men who were to be taken away from their daily occupation for six months' training. The House agreed to the National Service Acts only after a firm promise that when these men had passed through their training they should be restored to their pre-enlistment employment.
Since then the war has been brought about and many of the men then involved, together with millions of the

cream of our manhood, have now been away for five years, and, before the cessation of hostilities, may quite possibly have been away for six or seven years. Therefore we say that the very least these men who have been taken away are entitled to is to be re-engaged in their pre-enlistment employment for 52 weeks. Most of the men affected will be very young men, and those who know what it means to have been away from home for so long are bound to be very concerned about it. Many of them will have lost the whole of their skill for the time being, they will have lost valuable experience, and they will be unsettled. These men will want training and it will be some time before they can concentrate upon their pre-enlistment employment. We have already made provision for the injured to receive physical rehabilitation, and, surely, the next logical step we should take is to see that the young men who have been called to the colours and have served for five and six years should also be given an opportunity, for at least 52 weeks, to receive a course of occupational rehabilitation. We say that 26 weeks is not long enough and we are taking a very strong line on this point. We hope the Committee will support us in asking that the minimum time given to men, who have served this country so well, when they return to their pre-enlistment employment, should be 52 weeks.
Take my own trade, which is typical of many. No one, no matter how smart he was, could qualify to hold his own in that craft in six months. It would take some time to get down to the mathematical and geometrical knowledge required, and anyone called away from training of that kind knows how difficult it is to get down to it again. The very least that should be done for these men is that they should be given an opportunity of being in employment for 52 weeks to enable them to hold their own in the craft with those who have remained at home.
On several occasions I have listened with pleasure to the speeches of the Minister of Labour. He has paid many tributes during the past 12 months to the skill of the workpeople and he has said that we could never have got through all the necessary work that has been done if the workpeople of this country had not been trained in the way they were. He


went on to say that between the two wars we made the great mistake of allowing so many of our people to sign on at employment exchanges, during which time they were losing their skill. He mentioned Bolton, in particular, as having suffered to a great extent from this, and also pointed out that the skill of the workpeople represents a great capital asset. We say that this capital asset should be restored in full as soon as possible. From the national point of view, quite apart from the men's rights in the matter, those who have served in the Armed Forces should be given an opportunity of qualifying technically and of rehabilitating themselves in a skilled manner during at least 52 weeks of guaranteed employment. Therefore, we say, apart from the individual's point of view, that this proposal is a good business proposition and ought to be supported from a national point of view.
Even the provision for retention that is in the Bill is subject to the interpretation of what is "reasonable and practicable." We do not like that, because we know the interpretation that some employers will put upon those words. We have had experience of victimisation by employers; pages and pages of our industrial history are filled with what took place in the past and, therefore, we have no confidence in the words "reasonable and practicable" so far as 26 weeks are concerned. We say 52 weeks' reinstatement would be more reasonable and practicable than 26.
When my hon. Friend behind me spoke he reminded the Parliamentary Secretary of his experience and I hope he will emphasise it again if necessary. He said it was the practice in a large number of industries for men to be engaged in short time work, and, therefore, in 26 weeks' work it was possible for a man to work only one week in every four. That would be quite wrong, and we ought to know the position with regard to that matter and say that if there is short time it should be spread over 52 weeks and not over 26 weeks.
Let me admit that the best employers will carry out their moral obligation to their employees who have joined the Armed Forces irrespective of this Bill, but we have to legislate for those who will not. Therefore we are supporting this Bill, believing that reinstatement should

be made a legal obligation upon that minority of employers who would not be prepared to carry out their moral obligation. We go further and say that this is a reasonable Bill, but that it should be strengthened and buttressed by changing 26 weeks to 52. I understand that the United States of America, Australia and other places have already stipulated 26 weeks. That may be the reply to our case, but that is no reason why we should stick to 26 weeks. It is time this nation took the lead in such matters.
Prior to the last war Britain led the world in much of the progress in social services and also led the world in much of its constitutional and central government, but since the last war Britain has lagged behind countries such as New Zealand, Australia and others, and, therefore, on this issue we ought to set an example to the whole world. Parliament ought to realise that for men who have served their country so well, reinstatement for 26 weeks is not long enough and that it should be increased to 52. In addition to that, our country stood alone for 12 months and fought the world battle for freedom. Our men are now getting ready to carry out the greatest military feat in history. In these circumstances, the Committee should make it clear that we are not prepared to accept these 26 weeks. The Minister of Labour is a big man. [Laughter.]

Mr. Bevin: More weight than dignity.

Mr. Smith: I agree. What I said about the Minister of Labour also applies to the Parliamentary Secretary. I wish there were more public men in this country with the big outlook they have. The country would not have got into its present position if there had been. I know that the Minister has been in consultation with people outside, and we recognise that he is bound to have regard to that consultation. I am pleading that we should have more democracy in this Committee, and I want the Government to take the Whips off and to leave us to a free vote. In this Committee are the elected representatives of the people, and I plead with the Minister that, in spite of the consultations which have taken place outside, he should agree to take off the Whips.

Sir I. Albery: I was glad to hear from the hon. Member that he is convinced that the majority of employers will endeavour


to work the Bill loyally. From some of his earlier remarks I thought he was not quite so definite. I asked your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Williams, whether the Amendment which stands in my name could be safeguarded, and I pointed out my desire to amend the Bill solely as regards one word, by substituting "weekly" for "monthly." The hon. Member has said that he is definitely opposed to my Amendment, yet I regard his Amendment with great sympathy. I am entirely in favour of doing what is possible to fortify the position of men who return from the Forces.

Mr. Smith: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this matter. When we read the hon. Member's Amendment we thought it was to be applied to people employed on a monthly or longer period basis. We could not accept that proposal.

Sir I. Albery: That was the sense of it, but—and I will be quite frank with the Committee—the only reason I have for wanting to make the alteration is that it has since been pointed out to me that many contracts which I, in my ignorance, thought to be on a monthly basis are on a weekly basis. I desire to support the idea that men returning from service shall be given employment for a guaranteed minimum of 52 weeks. I have never heard what the objections are, but I imagine one is that a great many men are in more or less casual employment normally, and move frequently from one employer to another. The proposal, therefore, might not be considered practicable. My Amendment endeavours to help persons who are in more or less permanent employment. I am sure that many people will come back from war service into jobs which they will wish to keep for years, or spend their lives in, and it is only fair that such men should at least be guaranteed one year of that employment when they come back.
Unless the Minister or other Members of the Committee can put up some strong objection to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend I shall support him in the Division Lobby. If his Amendment is not accepted I shall still hope to have the opportunity of moving my own. In any case—and I do not want to be discourteous, Mr. Williams—I shall take the Amendment to a Division unless some

adequate argument is put up against it, because I feel that the Amendment is doing only justice to the class I have endeavoured to describe.

Sir Herbert Williams: Most of us, I think, are forced to be a little sceptical about the Bill. When we first started this principle, in connection with the Militia Training Act, we were dealing with a simple problem, which was that of re-absorbing, after a short period of training, 250,000 people. We are now dealing with something which affects several millions of people. Naturally, the ordinary employer will want to get his people back. A factory is a team; to have your own people back is much better than getting strangers. I find no provision in the Bill for dealing with the state of affairs which might arise in the event of a trade dispute. As to whether it should be 26 weeks or 52, instinctively I would like to see 52, subject to the provision that there must be a little two-way traffic. A man is free to give notice, if he wishes to better himself. You may have—and again, I am not quite clear about it—a legitimate case of misconduct in which an employer would desire the right to dismiss a man. I am not sure that that point is properly covered.
What happens in the event of a trade dispute? The distinguished union to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) belongs, do not often have a big strike. They have one about every 17 years, I think. If they have a big strike and the men are called out, are they deemed still to be in employment? If so, you might have the extraordinary position of the employer being required to pay wages to men who were on strike. It would be a very strange situation. So far as I can make out there is nothing in the Bill to deal with that point, and the longer the period is made the more significant the point becomes. I have no hostility to the Amendment, and I am inclined to support in the Lobby the 52 weeks, but we ought to know what is the practical significance of it, in the event of a trade dispute.

Mr. Bevin: I welcome the sympathy that has been expressed for a longer period of reinstatement, with its longer period obligation. Perhaps I might deal with the last point which has been raised. The answer is that once a man is out, either because of short time or a strike or


anything else, then he will be subject to all the things which are customary in that firm.

Sir H. Williams: It does not say so in the Bill.

Mr. Bevin: We will come to the Clause in a moment. The hon. Member is jumping a bit, which is not unusual.

Sir H. Williams: I am lighter. I can jump.

Mr. Bevin: The smallest ball has not always got the biggest rebound. The difficulty we had to face here was what obligation we were to impose in respect of the person who was in a short employment, such as in the building trades and other trades. The difficulty was to find something which was a reasonable obligation to impose, apart from the cases of people who would go back anyway. Those people who, as the hon. Member said, would be reinstated by their employers, who would be glad to get them and keep them. Since this Amendment was put down we have given further consideration to it, and the sort of compromise which I think the Government would accept, if it would meet the feeling of the Committee, would be something like this—I should have to work it out between now and the Report stage—that where a person had been in the employment of the same employer for 52 weeks prior to being called up then we would accept a 52 weeks' obligation, and where he had been in employment for a less period than that we would accept 26 weeks. In that way we would divide the obligation and endeavour to meet the two sets of circumstances which Members desire to meet. I think that should meet the wishes of the Committee.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised?

Mr. McCorquodale: It would obviously not be reasonable to ask an employer to run his works for one man when all the others were out in a trade dispute or on short time. Therefore, we would assume that such men would come under the prevailing conditions.

Sir H. Williams: That does not quite cover the point. There is sometimes a partial dispute in works affecting one department. That might have consequential effects on other parts of the works and

a certain number of people might have to be stood off, and there might have to be a choice between one man and another. Who is to be stood off? I think the position requires to be safeguarded by the inclusion of some words in the Bill.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am afraid my hon. Friend is again wrong. If only some people had to be stood off it would obviously not be reasonable and practicable to stand off a man who came under the provisions of this Bill. Therefore he would not be stood off.

Mr. Lewis Jones: I was rather hoping that the Minister would reject this Amendment, and I will give my reason. References were made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) to the consultations which took place between both sides of industry on this part of the Bill. The difficulty was realised. The Minister has already made a suggestion which I think is perhaps on the whole acceptable regarding cases where an employee has been with his employer for 52 weeks. In the earlier discussions we were up against the difficulty that under Clause 7 the right of reinstatement is given to an applicant for employment by the employer by whom he was employed within the period of four weeks immediately preceding the beginning of his war service. It seemed to us rather hard that in the case of an employee who had been with his previous employer, whether as an office boy or worker, for two weeks, the obligation should fall upon a small employer to find him employment even for 26 weeks. I think I can say that the view was taken that 26 weeks was generous as the period of reinstatement, taking into consideration those cases where people had been previously employed for one or two weeks only. In the case of the basic industries—take iron and steel for instance—when these men are reinstated they will be reinstated for the rest of their lives; they have always been associated with the industry and will continue to be. I wanted to make the point about the reasonableness of the arrangement for 26 weeks' reinstatement in relation to a short period of employment. The Minister has made a suggestion that he is prepared to consider an Amendment providing 52 weeks' reinstatement on the basis of 52 weeks' previous employment and I think I might be prepared to accept that.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Lewis Jones) regretted that the Minister had not seen his way to reject the Amendment. I personally, like, I think, most of those who sit on this side of the Committee, am deeply disappointed that he did not see his way to accept it. I suppose my right hon. Friend would say that in view of the conflict of regrets on both sides of the Committee there is some sort of case for the compromise he has proposed. I do not think he ought to go for compromises on the basis of how many spoke or were prepared to vote on either side but on the reasonableness of the thing. After all, what is it we are attempting to do in this Bill? It is to give to men to whom a pledge was given, a period of security in their employment after the war. That is a simple thing and the Government and the Measure treated it as a simple thing. When the Minister fixed the period of 26 weeks he did not consider, and he was right not to consider, how long the man had been employed. He fixed what seemed to him a reasonable period of suitable employment, quite irrespective of how long he had previously been in the employment of the particular employer, except as the Bill provides.

Mr. Bevin: I would like to correct my hon. Friend. The Act of 1939 only gave the man 12 weeks' compensation. There is now retention, and in discussions this period was increased to 26 weeks. It was not increased to a longer period than that because of the short-term employment problem. It was not because of any other consideration.

Mr. Silverman: I quite follow that. In fact the Measure of 1939 gave no security at all either for 12 weeks or 26 weeks, only the short period of notice to which the man's contract would have entitled him. I quite follow what my right hon. Friend says, that in fixing 26 weeks regard was had to giving real effect to what the 1939 Measure contemplated. My right hon. Friend is now going beyond 26 weeks and is doing it because he has been led to think he could reasonably do more. We say that he can do more than that. If to ask for a stable period of 52 weeks in the difficult conditions which may exist after the war is not to ask too much, I say with great respect to my right hon. Friend that there is not really very much to be said for giving less than that to others who had less security of

employment previously. There is no more to be said, I say again with great respect and with real earnestness, for giving a stable period of 52 weeks merely because a man had had continuous employment with the same employer for 52 weeks before being called up, than there is for the class distinction in the Amendment which the hon. Member put down. What he says in the Amendment is that if a man was never subject to a week's notice we should give him more than we would have given him if he had always been subject to a week's notice—a purely class distinction, giving more to the salaried class than to the weekly wage earner. Now the Minister himself says, "Give more to those who were less the flotsam and jetsam of labour conditions before the war than is given to the others." My right hon. Friend shakes his head. I accept his intention, but that is the result of his proposal.

Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend is totally ignoring the nature of the employments for which I am imposing an obligation for only six months. Some employments are not continuous, and will not be continuous. Contracts for building and things like that do not run so long: therefore, the men have to go from employer to employer. That does not mean that they are out of work or are flotsam or jetsam, it is the nature of their employment; that is all.

Mr. Silverman: There is nothing in the Bill to compel anybody to employ a man, except where it is reasonable and practicable. The Minister said just now that he was prepared to accept a minimum period of 52 weeks in all those cases where before enlistment the man had, in fact, been employed by the same employer for 52 weeks. That includes that classification which he is now making, but goes far beyond it. It could apply to a clerk. If he had been employed by a solicitor for 12 months before he joined the Army, he would get 12 months' employment when he came back; but if he had been a shop assistant before that and had been employed for only three months, he will get a minimum period of only six months. That makes class distinction of the kind I am describing, the old principle of giving more to those who have, and taking away from those who have not. We appreciate the difficulties of operating this Measure. No one wants


to lay an obligation on anybody that it would not be reasonable and practicable to expect him to observe. But the Bill itself provides for that. We are now dealing with a minimum period in those cases where it is reasonable and practicable for the employer to employ a man for that period, and the suggestion is now made that, without distinction of what has happened before, without drawing dividing lines between the casuals and others with security of tenure, without drawing dividing lines between the salary-earner and the wage-earner, we should treat them all alike. When they come out, it has first to be decided whether it is reasonable and practicable for the employer to take them back, and if it is, the employers must take them back for a minimum period, so that there shall be a period of stability for these people to adapt themselves to the new conditions. We claim that there is a case for making that minimum period 52 weeks for all these men, instead of only for some.

Mr. Ellis Smith: All who were present when the Minister spoke will appreciate the manner in which he dealt with the Amendment. We want more of that attitude shown by Ministers. On the assurance which was given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to add:
Provided that, should the applicant be guilty of such misconduct as would entitle the employer summarily to dismiss him, the employer may do so within the period of twenty-six weeks aforesaid, but should the employer summarily dismiss him on that ground and subsequently be held not lawfully entitled to do so, the employer shall be liable to pay to the applicant as damages for wrongful dismissal such sum as is equivalent to the amount which the applicant would have earned in the said employment had his employment continued for the full period, less such sum as the applicant may have earned in the said period after his dismissal.
I felt much more sympathetic towards the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) because I hoped that the Amendment which I am now moving would soften the effect of the offer which the Minister made, to lengthen the obligatory period of employment to which an applicant for employment shall be entitled. I doubt whether anyone could reasonably contest the claim that if an employer is under an

obligation to employ one of his former employees for a definite time, be it 26 weeks, 39 weeks, or a year, he should have the right to dismiss that employee if the employee has been guilty of wilful misconduct. My Amendment gives that right to the employer, but it protects the employee from any unreasonable dismissal. I have endeavoured to be perfectly fair to both the employer and the employee. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept what I think is a most reasonable and proper Amendment.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I call attention to what may happen if this Amendment is carried? Let me point to what is happening now under the Essential Work Order in connection with the very principle of the Amendment. I have raised this matter once or twice before. Under the Essential Work Order several employers have dismissed employees for alleged misconduct. The National Service officer has decided against the employer, and has ordered the man to go back to the same employment; the employer has refused to obey the direction of the National Service officer, and has paid the man his wages while the man is out of work. I do not think the Government can possibly envisage that this Bill will enable employers to do that sort of thing, but that is exactly what the Amendment proposes. The vast majority of the working people of this country do not want to remain at home drawing wages, and to be under the cloud of misconduct at their work. They prefer to work for their wages. There is another flaw in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman spoke of wilful misconduct, but in the Amendment he does not use the word "wilful." Let me, as a trade union official for many years, tell him that we are in for a first-class row if this is inserted as the law of the land. There will be strikes in some instances if this provision is applied to industry.
I would like the hon. Gentleman to think this matter over again. Who is going to decide what is misconduct? In the cases that have arisen recently, under the Essential Work Order, the National Service officer of the Ministry of Labour has decided against the employer's interpretation of misconduct. I am almost sure that the Minister of Labour, with his experience of present conditions in industry, will not accept the Amendment.

Major Manningham-Buller: If I may deal straightaway with one point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), who said that this was inserting something new in the law, I would say that this provision makes no alteration as to the rights of employer and employees with regard to dismissal for misconduct, save where those rights have been affected by the limited operation of the Essential Work Order. This Amendment merely provides that, if an employee under this Bill is guilty of misconduct which, in common law, would entitle the employer summarily to dismiss him, that right shall remain. So far as I can see, it would work in this way. Supposing that an employee in a privileged position under this Bill is convicted of stealing from a fellow employee, has the employer to keep him in employment for the balance of the 26 weeks, or can he exercise what, in common law, is the right of summary dismissal? It seems to me important, for the preservation of good relations in industry, that the common law rights should be preserved and that the employer should be able to dismiss summarily such an employee. The first part of this Amendment is designed to preserve that right, but with this additional sanction, that if an employer exercises that right but does so wrongly, the matter can be taken to the courts, and then, by the ordinary measures of breach of contract or wrongful dismissal, the employer should be under an obligation to pay the amount which the workman would have received if he had been kept on full employment.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. and gallant Member clear up one point that passes through my mind? When the employee is proved innocent, as he suggests, would the employer continue to pay for the rest of the period?

Major Manningham-Buller: This differs from the Essential Work Order in this sense, that, supposing there was a dismissal by the employer, there is no provision in this Amendment—and quite rightly—to force the employer to take back that employee. If he was held to have terminated the employment wrongly, in common law there is now no power to force an employer to take back an employee wrongfully dismissed, but he has to pay him proper compensation, and this Amendment would compel him to

pay the same compensation as he would have had under the existing law.

Mr. Leslie: I think this is a very dangerous Amendment. There is no occupation in this country more affected than the distributive trade. Take the position of the average shop manager. He may be charged with having short stock. He has no opportunity of checking that stock. It is checked by the headquarters of the firm and he may be dismissed. Worse still, after he is dismissed, there is no chance of his finding employment elsewhere. The probability is that the firm insured their stock through an insurance society, and that insurance company comes on to the man to make good the shortage. If he refuses, or is not in a position to do it, that insurance company prevents his getting a situation elsewhere, because they want to sue him. Take cases in which employers have been charged with infringements of the Shops Act or the Weights and Measure Act. What happens? There is a conviction, and, in order to hoodwink the public, very often an assistant is dismissed, so that the public may think the assistant was to blame and not the employer. When an individual is dismissed in these circumstances, what is his chance of getting a situation anywhere? If an employer wants to get rid of a man he does not want, he has a right of appeal to the tribunal, which would consider the case.

The Attorney-General: I think it may be convenient if I say a few words at this stage; they may or may not satisfy the Committee on this point. I am not sure that the position under the Bill is quite clear to every hon. Member. We do not advise the Committee to accept the Amendment, because, in our view, the point—and there is a point here of course—is adequately and better covered by the words in the Bill. The obligation to continue to employ for the 26 weeks, or, in certain cases, 52 weeks, is contingent on its being reasonable so to do. To take back an employee guilty of theft from a fellow worker or his employer would not be reasonable.

Major Manningham-Buller: When the case is going to the Reinstatement Committee, from whom it may go to the courts, has this convicted person to be kept in employment until the matter is decided?

The Attorney-General: My hon. and gallant Friend has a little faith in virtue which, I agree, I do not always share myself, but he will remember what I said about that. The position is this. Suppose a man suspects his comrade. There probably will not be much doubt about it, and the employer decided that it is not reasonable to keep this man on. The man has been guilty of an act which makes it unreasonable that the employer should continue to employ him. If the man accepts it, that is an end of it. If he does not accept it, he can challenge it as a default by the employer under an obligation imposed by the Act to employ him for 26 weeks. He can then go to the Reinstatement Committee, which can make an order for compensation—the provisions laid down for compensation are not quite the same as in the Amendment, though I think they are substantially the same—and say that the amount of compensation must be the loss suffered or likely to be suffered, with the total amount of the earnings as the maximum. Therefore, it seems to us that the point raised by the Amendment is covered by the Bill, and it is much better to have one code rather than introduce a different code for this particular problem. There is the further objection that acceptance of this Amendment might suggest that misconduct would be the only ground on which engagements might be terminated. If a man's whole factory was burnt down, it would make it equally reasonable to say that he could not employ the man.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to draw attention to the fact that, when discussing another Bill, hon. Members on the other side were trying to make a demonstration of the fact that we were wanting to look after the lads returning from the Forces and were giving a privilege to the cripples from the Forces as against other cripples. When it comes to this question, they are trying to get privileges for the employer against the men returning from the Forces. There is not one hon. Member there who is prepared to get up and make a statement such as was made in connection with the cripples and say "We want privilege for the soldiers, as against the employers." Here we have a provision which will entitle employers to dismiss men. But should the employee be able to prove his innocence, the employer still throws him out, and then who is respon-

sible after he is thrown out—this man who may have been serving his country faithfully and well? Why do not we get some of the Tories taking up this attitude of privilege for the soldier? There is privilege for cripples against other cripples but no privilege for soldiers against employers, bankers or others. It is a shame and a disgrace that a man should get up with such a rotten mind and move such a rotten Amendment.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask whether the hon. Member was present in this Chamber during the Second Reading or whether he read the Debate on the Bill?

Captain Prescott: I am prepared to assure the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that I desire privileges for soldiers who will return home from overseas and I hope that this Bill will give them some at least of those privileges. I must confess that I see some considerable substance in the Amendment now proposed, but I did not then appreciate that the words "reasonable and practicable" would cover the illustration given by the learned Attorney-General. In the compensation provisions set out in the Amendment it is stated that, if an employee is wrongfully dismissed,
the employer shall be liable to pay to the applicant as damages for wrongful dismissal—such sum as is equivalent to the amount which the applicant would have earned in the said employment had his employment continued for the full period, less such sum as the applicant may have earned in the said period after his dismissal.

Mr. Leslie: The onus is on the man instead of on the employer.

Captain Prescott: That is not the point I am on.

Mr. Leslie: No, but that is the point here.

Captain Prescott: The point with which I wish to deal is that made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller), who said that under this compensation provision the dismissed employee will get compensation apart from compensation he would get as a result of any action for wrongful dismissal.
I may have read the Amendment wrongly, but I cannot see that that would be so. It is specifically stated that compensation, as damages for wrongful dismissal, shall be a certain sum, less a


certain sum earned by other means. I cannot think that compensation provisions of that kind would be right, and I hope that, whatever may come out of the Amendment, the Committee will certainly not allow a provision for compensation of that kind to be inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: I think that the Attorney-General has answered the case. Although in a hypothetical case the employer has the right to dismiss an employee if he has committed theft, cases do not work out at all in that way in real industry. The great mass of these cases generally consist of a row between a man and his manager or foreman, and it is impossible to say who started or finished it. There is no contract of service here, as the great mass of working people have no contract of service at all and they can be dismissed at a moment's notice. The great engineering trades have no contract of service. [Interruption.] I am talking about the workman's ordinary common law right His wages are paid by the hour and therefore there is no contract. It is said that a person dismissed in this way can be paid in advance, but that is not always fair. To pay an apprentice his wages in advance is nothing like as important to him as securing his reinstatement into employment. It is often vital that an apprentice should be reinstated, and I hope that a monetary payment in the case of apprentices will not be adopted as a substitute for not allowing a boy or girl to finish apprenticeship. Pride of craft and apprenticeship are not bad things even in these days, and it is really no compensation whatever to give a money payment in cases of this character.

Mr. Lewis Jones: I was hoping earlier in the Debate to catch your eye, Major Milner, because I was going to appeal to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment not to press it upon the Committee. I was satisfied that the conditions in the Bill were so definite that a man could only be re-employed and retained in employment if that was reasonable and practicable. Obviously in the case of a man guilty of misconduct it would be considered unreasonable and impracticable to continue him in his employment. I think it was unnecessary to move the

Amendment. The Bill is definite on the method of calculation for compensation, and, therefore, I am satisfied that all these questions can be dealt with within the present scope of the Bill and I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Naylor: I want to ask the Attorney-General whether a man who is summarily dismissed and decides to go to a court of law will go to the hardship committee? Assuming that he obtains a decision in his favour, does he then have to go to the hardship committee, or would the order of the court establish his right to reinstatement? If he goes to the hardship committee first and they decide against him, has he still the right to go to a court of law for the determination of his claim?

The Attorney-General: If a man is reinstated and as a result is being employed by his former employer under the Act, it superimposes a legal contract of service. But if it was merely a weekly contract it seems very unlikely that he would even dream of going to the law courts, because it would mean getting a week's damages, whereas, in appearing before the hardship committee, it is possible to get damages for a longer period, or a reinstatement order. It is theoretically possible for a man, having been reinstated, to have a contract for six months. The Bill covers people in all walks of life, where long-term contracts are sometimes quite dominant.
If that six months' contract is broken, nothing in this Bill deprives him of his legal rights to go to the court and claim damages. As at present advised—I think really it is unlikely to arise—I cannot see anything in the Bill to prevent his doing both, that is, if he has a legal contract, suing at law, and at the same time invoking any rights he has under the Bill. It is not like the Workmen's Compensation Act, where you have to elect. I do not think he will do both, so I do not think it is likely to arise.

Sir I. Albery: Did I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that if an employee is dismissed for dishonest conduct and it is afterwards found that he has not been dishonest, he can get only a week's wages?

The Attorney-General: No. All I said was that if all I have is a contract with somebody—I was not talking about the


Bill but about ordinary common law—to be employed for a week and I am dismissed for no good reason, the only damages I can get are a week's wages. The employer may have libelled and slandered and said I stole when I did not, but the only damages I can get for breach of contract of service, broadly speaking, are a week's wages. I was not talking about the Bill.

Sir A. Gridley: I think we have made some progress as the result of the first contribution by the Attorney-General. What lay behind this Amendment being put on the Order Paper was a doubt whether the words "reasonable and practicable" provided a definite and binding obligation upon an employer to employ a person for a fixed period, or whether that would give the employer the right to determine that contract. I think the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it quite clear that if an employee is guilty of gross misconduct the employer will have the right to dismiss him. It would not be reasonable and practicable to put an obligation upon the employer to employ such a person. That having been made clear, with the permission of the Committee I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Priority of claims to employment.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we might discuss together the first four Amendments to this Clause, in the name of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. N. Bower).

Mr. Norman Bower: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out "otherwise than."
The object of this Amendment, and of the three other Amendments in my name, is to try to simplify what appears to me to be one of the most complicated and unsatisfactory features of this Bill, namely, the system of priorities which it establishes. I hope the Minister will be able to give them serious consideration. I hope, also, that those who supported the last Amendment but one in the interests of greater stability will feel able to support

this Amendment. Under this Clause, as at present drawn, it will be possible for a man to come back and apply to be reinstated, to be so reinstated, and then, after an interval of time, when he has begun to settle down in the job, for another man to come back—with a prior claim and the employer will be compelled to discharge the first man in order to reinstate the second. As I understand it, that is a sequence of events which can happen more than once. That process is calculated to cause a tremendous amount of heartburn and ill-feeling and unnecessary dislocation. We know how people build their whole lives round their jobs. A man comes back and gets reinstated into a job which he has every reason to suppose will prove to be more or less permanent. He perhaps starts to buy a house, he sends his children to a certain school, he enters into various commitments in the locality. Under those circumstances it seems unreasonable—assuming that there are going to be enough jobs for everyone; I quite agree that it very largely hinges on that—that another man should be able to insist on being taken back for 26 or 52 weeks—because he has no right to insist on anything more than that—however great the hardship inflicted on the man previously reinstated, who now has to be discharged to make room for him. It would be far more reasonable that the second man should be asked to take another job. As I see it, there is nothing to prevent the employer from discharging the first man voluntarily after he has employed him for 26 weeks and taking the second man back. If it appears that less hardship would be caused by discharging the first man than by refusing to take the second man, then I submit he should not be under any compulsion to do that. It would be far better, once a man has been reinstated in any particular job under this Bill, that he should be allowed to stay there than that the employer should be placed in this unhappy and invidious position.

Mr. McCorquodale: If these Amendments were accepted, the effect would be that where there have been successive holders of a job, the man who gets back first seizes the job regardless of whether he ought to have it or not. I cannot imagine a more unfortunate Amendment. The man who stays out fighting while the junior employee remains in the firm


would get home to find his original place taken, and would have no right to it if this Amendment were accepted. There is one further point I would make. Under our proposal, the man who arrives back first does establish his rights, but if the senior man arrives back later on, he supersedes him, but the first man does not therefore get dismissed. His rights under this Bill are to be employed in any other job in which it is reasonable and practicable to employ him. He does not get dismissed unless there is no other job in the factory which the employer can offer him. If the Amendments were accepted, that right goes altogether.

Mr. Bower: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that if six separate men have all passed through the same job and they come back one after the other, the employer has an obligation, if possible, to employ all of them although they have all worked on the same job?

Mr. McCorquodale: If reasonable and practicable, certainly. But if it is not reasonable and practicable, then there is no obligation on the employer. I would ask the hon. Member not to press this Amendment. We are endeavouring to safeguard the claims of those who are fighting our battles for us. The fundamental point of this question of reinstatement is that the junior man would never have got the job if the senior man had not been called up and gone to the Forces. Therefore, the senior man must have the prior claim.

Major Manningham-Buller: There is one point I would like the Minister to make clear. As I read the Bill the employer can refuse to take an applicant into his employment if that can only be done by discharging some other person. At line 41, on page 4, the Bill reads:
… by refusing to take into employment, in accordance with section one of this Act, some such other person as aforesaid who is a person to whom this Act applies and has duly made an application under that section which is still in force.
If A applies for employment he might be refused because B has put in his application. B would be in a better position in not having had his application granted because if he had a shorter previous service than A and his application had been granted A would turn B out.

Mr. McCorquodale: We will look into that point. The intention of the Clause, I think, is appreciated by my hon. and gallant Friend

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Persons to whom Act applies, and meaning of references to beginning and end of war service.)

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Thorneycroft.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I admit I was not in the Chamber a little while ago when the then occupant of the Chair indicated that certain Amendments would not be called as being out of Order. Do I understand that among those held not to be in Order is the one in my name, in page 5, line 32? I wondered, Mr. Williams, if you would give me some guidance as to the reason why the Amendment has been held to be out of Order?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not selected as being outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I thought that might have been in the mind of the Chair and I ask your indulgence, Mr. Williams, to advance reasons why it should be—

The Deputy-Chairman: At any rate, we cannot take it before the previous Amendment which I have selected.

Mr. Burke: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) and myself to this Clause, in page 5, line 26. I take it, Mr. Williams, that anything that could relevantly be said on that Amendment could be said on the Amendment you are proposing to call?

The Deputy-Chairman: The second Amendment to this Clause is the one I have called to be discussed.

Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
(c) persons (whether male or female) who, on or after the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, enter upon a period of whole-time service in civil defence service.


The purpose of this Amendment is to extend to persons engaged in full-time Civil Defence service the right of reinstatement in their pre-service jobs after they have finished their jobs in the Civil Defence Service. This Bill has caused a great deal of surprise, particularly among the local authorities of this country, in that these people have been omitted from its provisions. The majority of the persons concerned were volunteers in the early days of 1938, when the country was calling upon local authorities to set up schemes for the purpose of meeting the menace from the air. In those days we had a ready response, particularly from men who fought in the last war and who were too old to take their places in this war. Many of these people went into the rescue, ambulance, decontamination and warden's services at a much lower rate of pay than they would have obtained had they remained in industry. Later they were "frozen" in their jobs and were unable to transfer to more remunerative forms of employment. It is this section of the community that is not included in the provisions of this Bill. They have given loyal service to the country and have taken part in raids, the heaviest of which took place before 10th April, 1941, particularly in the provinces. At a later stage younger men who were of military age took their places in the Forces. Generally speaking, it is the men over 50 years of age who are now manning our Civil Defence services and who will be in a disadvantageous position in the labour market at the end of the war.
On the other hand, this Bill has been very generous to those who made no effort at all before they were compelled to do so. From experience as a Civil Defence Divisional Commander in the city of Manchester for three years I know the feeling of these men and women towards the attitude the Government have taken up in this Measure. We have, in the city of Manchester, 1,300 people employed in the Civil Defence general services. Since the coming into being of right to direct persons who are conscientious objectors, or who have done no Civil Defence work at all, 25 people have been directed to full time Civil Defence service in Manchester. It is a shameful thing to say in this House that those 25 people—the majority of whom are conscientious objectors—are the only ones who are guaranteed a job after their Civil Defence

work is finished. I hope the Minister will take a generous view of the appeal on behalf of those who unselfishly went into voluntary service before the war, who gave up their spare time to train, who met the raids which took place in the early days of the war and who are now turned down by a country which says, "Your place is in the queue, outside the employment exchange, after the war."

Mr. Burke: I would like to support the Amendment. Members will recall that long before the war started men were recruited for the Auxiliary Fire Service and that they had an unenviable task at a time when people regarded the war as being a "phoney" war, when there was little danger to our cities and towns. At that time these men were training, often in their spare time, but people regarded them as being rather useless. Fortunately for us they became necessary when, after Dunkirk, it became obvious that our fire services were not sufficient. A Regulation was passed compelling those people who were inside to remain inside. In order to improve upon the needs of the fire service, men who were called up for the Armed Forces were given the right of going into the fire service, but so many men preferred the Services that it became necessary for the Minister to direct them from 10th April into this service.
There may be in the mind of the Minister an idea that, if you bring into the Bill members of the Fire Service, he will be asked to bring in quite a number of others as well, but I think there is a distinct difference between men in ordinary industry and these men who are in the Fire Service. They are a disciplined, trained body of men, in uniform, mobile, doing a service which is quite different from that which the man in ordinary industry does. All along the line their rates of pay have been made comparable with those of men in the Services. Everyone agrees that the men who went through the blitz period, between the summers of 1940 and 1941, did a most remarkable piece of work. The Minister intends to include only those people who were in for the last month of the blitz. From 10th April to 10th May, 1941, was the period when the blitzes were becoming less and less difficult. I think the last heavy raid on London was somewhere about 10th May. The people who went


through the difficult period of the winter of 1940–41 are the very people who are being excluded, and the only ones brought in are those who came in for only a month's severe work.
The Amendment has the backing of the trade union movement and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider it sympathetically and see if he cannot take the date back a little so as to include those who rendered very valuable service. On the Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary said that volunteers were not to be penalised. These people volunteered in 1938 and went through a good deal of training. Their good work is generally acknowledged by the whole community and there is a real comparison between their service and that of the Armed Forces, which I think makes it possible to open the door and let them in.

Mr. Bevin: I think it is as well that the Committee should be reminded what is the purpose of the Bill. It is to put down machinery to give effect to a Clause carried in 1939. It does not pretend at all to deal with demobilisation, Civil Defence or anything else. I am left with an Act of Parliament, carried on a Sunday morning, which is totally unworkable. The Government decided that under this Bill they would not attempt to broaden the scope of reinstatement beyond the Act of 1939 and the Act of 1941. That does not relieve them of the obligation of dealing with the whole problem which demobilisation will create, including the thousands of troops who will have no job to go back to. I beg my hon. Friends not to try to complicate this Measure and to initiate now a Debate which ought to take place when the Government makes its proposals for the general rehabilitation of the Services and demobilisation, which is a far wider subject than this and which can only be dealt with, as I have said so often, by the State undertaking very wide social obligations. You cannot settle that wider problem by trying to impose obligations on A, B and C. Therefore, I think the attempt to deal with it in this Bill is a mistake.
No one in this Committee or in the country would depreciate the Civil Defence services but I appeal to the Committee not to draw too wide distinctions between the services that have been

rendered by our citizens. I should be the last person to try to evaluate them in one way or the other. I could go on quoting cases of men in docks and factories and on the railways just as valuable and courageous. I shall never forget on Clapham Common one night seeing the signalmen at work. I forgot the bombs that were dropping all round us looking at them going on with their work. Do not imagine that, because they are not included in this Bill, the Government under-values or depreciates any body of people who have rendered service in the war. I hope it will not be taken on that footing. What we have to consider is whether it should go in this Bill. If you begin, you cannot draw the line at all. I have tried. This has been debated by the Cabinet over and over again and we came to the conclusion that we ought to do what the Bill is trying to do and no more. I have had tremendous pressure put on me to include the Land Army and other Services. I have had to say, "You will have to take your place in the general demobilisation of the country."
If I had to mention one advantage the Civil Defence service will have over the Forces it is this. Immediately we invade the Continent and destroy the enemy's air force a very high priority of release and return to the labour market will come for the Civil Defence services, long before you can begin releasing any troops, at a moment when the labour market will be just hungry for people. A high priority of release is inevitable. If I may refer to a previous Amendment and the applications of three or four men for one job, the senior man might well be in Japan or India before his time for release comes. The object of the Bill to a very large extent is to see that the man who has to go on fighting in the Far East until the whole war is finished is not prejudiced. The object of the Bill is not so much to secure jobs for applicants as to protect the rights of those who must go on fighting and see that their employment is not prejudiced when the final shot is fired and to lay down what I hope will be reasonable machinery to ensure that protection. I beg my hon. Friends to wait until the Government are in a position, as they will be at the proper moment, to deal with these wider questions, first of the Services, then of Civil Defence, and then of the factories, all of which will be unfolded.


It is bound up to a very large extent with wider problems of social security and the rest of it, all of which have to be dealt with. I would ask my hon. Friends not to press this matter on this Bill but to keep their powder dry for the time when the problem has really to be dealt with in a wider and more comprehensive way.

Mr. McEntee: I am very disappointed with the answer of my right hon. Friend. I could have understood all his arguments if other Civil Defence workers had not been included in the Bill.

Mr. Bevin: That is just an accident. I was approached by the Ministry of Home Security in 1941, when London was being blitzed, to find men immediately and to apply compulsion. I did it. That is all.

Mr. McEntee: The fact remains that in paragraph (c) of this Clause certain Civil Defence workers are brought within the Bill. My case is that the people who have been brought within the Bill have not so reasonable a case for being in as those who have been left out. Can the Minister give any reason why a person who volunteered for Civil Defence, including the Fire Service, in 1938, and gave his services voluntarily and then became efficient at his own expense and in his own time, is not in the Bill, whereas a person who had to be dragged into the Civil Defence Service, who had refused to do any service and was a conscientious objector and perhaps had been in prison, and was then directed to the Service, is to have his job guaranteed? If the Minister had moved an Amendment to leave out paragraph (c), I could have understood his arguments. He told us that these people accepted very low pay, and he spoke about somebody on the railway at Clapham Common who carried on in the signal box in difficult circumstances. I have personally known Civil Defence people to carry on in far more difficult circumstances, and at that time they were getting extremely low pay. After all, the railway men were in their regular permanent jobs, but many of the men and women in Civil Defence gave up jobs with a wage in some cases twice that which they accepted in Civil Defence. They are apparently not to be considered at all, but the men and women who were forced into the Service and did everything possible to resist being forced into it, are

to come under the Bill and will have their former jobs guaranteed.
If the Minister had promised that at some future time these people would be brought within another Bill, we might have been willing to withdraw the Amendment, but he has given no such promise. All he can say is that they will have an advantage on demobilisation, but they will have no advantage over those who come within the Bill, such as conscientious objectors and others. He also asks us not to make distinctions between one set of workers and another. Is not the Minister himself making a distinction? There may be two men working side by side. One of them volunteered in 1938, trained himself to become efficient and worked regularly, and perhaps gave up a good job to take a wage of £3 a week. Beside him is a man who was forced into Service by the court. This man will have his job guaranteed when the war is over. The man who gave free service for a long period and who gave up a good job and accepted a low wage is to get no consideration. The whole thing is grossly unfair, and I must express my great disappointment with the Minister's reply.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend could not go further. His argument comparing Civil Defence Services with the Fighting Services is an effective one, but it does not get over the fact that there is a distinction between conscripts and volunteers in Civil Defence. I do not think that anything that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman will remove the feeling of discontent throughout the country that the people who came into Civil Defence of their own accord and defended the country at the time of its great trial should be penalised, whereas people who were directed into the Service should benefit under the Bill. There is not the same discrimination between conscripts and volunteers in the other Fighting Services. I would draw the Committee's attention to the all-important date April, 1941, and ask whether there is any Member who has not been considerably frightened during air-raids and whether his moments of fear did not happen mainly before April, 1941. It was during this period, when the whole country was subjected to its greatest trial, that these people came into the Civil Defence Service. I appreciate that it will be much easier for people in Civil Defence


to get jobs than for men in the Army who may be sent to the Far East, but unless the right hon. Gentleman can give some assurance that the discrepancy between volunteers and conscripts will be removed, I hope that the Amendment will be carried.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I think we appreciate the Minister's difficulties, but I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) has been saying. My constituency in South-East London is markedly affected. I know many people there who, out of sheer patriotism, volunteered to train for A.R.P. duties a year or more before the war, and found themselves called up for full-time service at the beginning of September, 1939. They gave up jobs with a much higher rate of pay, many of them, but they did not mind that because they wanted to serve their country. In London we were all preparing ourselves for immediate heavy air-raids.
For 12 months they spent their time training, being derided often by cartoonists and other people. They were everybody's butt, and they took it in good part. From September, 1940, onwards they were everybody's heroes. The various Civil Defence services, certainly in my constituency, won the respect of everybody. Naturally it burst on them with a shock when they saw this Bill, and discovered that protection was being given only to those called up to the Service after 10th April, 1941. They know perfectly well that the heavy war strain on the Civil Defence services fell on the volunteers, who were in the service before that date. I do not know how the Minister will manage to handle this. What I am concerned about is that he should appreciate this feeling, and understand that he must in some way allay the disquiet and anxiety felt at the terms of this Bill. We all want to help him, and to find the right solution for this difficult problem.

Mr. Bevin: If it would help the Committee I would be quite willing to accept the point of view of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and drop the Civil Defence, 1941, conscript class out of the Bill altogether. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to wait a moment, and to let me tell the reason why

it is in. I have discovered this is a very peculiar House. Hon. Members now take that view, but if I had come as Minister to deprive men of rights which had been given prior to the war, the argument might have gone entirely the other way. Therefore, I took the view that I could not very well deprive men of rights given under the short Bill of 1941, because by the accident of fate they came under the National Service Act. That is the only reason. I appreciate that Civil Defence ought to be dealt with as a whole. It has been a great bugbear to me. I never wanted them in the National Service Acts, and I would have preferred to deal with this compulsion in another way, but everybody felt, and pressure was brought from local authorities everywhere, that I must get these men. Accordingly, I came to the House in the emergency and asked for the short Bill of 1941.
When that Bill came before the House I well remember that I was pressed by everybody to give anyone who was conscripted under that Bill the same rights as under the main Act, and I yielded. Now, hon. Members see the result of my weakness. I am hoist with my own petard. That is the difficulty you get in when you compromise too easily. I tried to keep them out then so as not to have this complication now. If it would help the Committee I would prefer to drop this small 1941 section out of this Bill, keeping it entirely for the Services, and dealing when the time comes with the other wider problems. No one would be happier than myself to be able to deal with these categories of people who have served the country in their proper order and to deal with them uniformly, service by service.
I suppose I would be right in saying, in answer to the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) that while a good many men gave up jobs, a very large number of men who left work to join Civil Defence really jeopardised some essential work by their willingness to join. On the other hand, a large number who were unemployed at the time went into Civil Defence. I do not want to get this mixed up. I will make this offer. If hon. Members would like me to drop them from this Bill—[Interruption.] I am trying to meet the Committee. Let me make it clear. The number affected by this one Clause out of the total Civil


Defence personnel, I am told, is roughly 30,000. If you would like me to take away rights from these 30,000 and leave them to be dealt with when the whole question is dealt with I am perfectly willing. If hon. Members would like to leave out these 30,000 and then deal with Civil Defence when we come to the general problem, I would prefer that. I do not like taking away rights from men, but I make that offer.

Mr. McEntee: I would like to ask the Minister a question. Can he tell me why he cannot insert the same date for the one class as for the other? I did not make it as a suggestion. I simply said I could have understood it if the Minister did it, but I cannot understand him putting it in two ways, that the Service man should have the date 1939 and the Civil Defence man must have the date 1941. If it was possible in the one case I suggest it is possible in the other. Unless the Committee gets a promise that he will deal in a similar way with Civil Defence as with the Forces I hope the Committee will not agree to this Clause or the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: Let me try to get this clear. I cannot put in different dates. I cannot make 1941 retrospective to 1939. They came in under compulsion and there were men who took the job voluntarily just as others took a job in a factory or anywhere else. I cannot date back the Act of 1941 to 1939. If you do date this back to 1939, you will lower the value of the soldier's right of reinstatement. If you bring all these people into the Bill you will lower the value of his right. Suppose you had ten men employed at a factory, six of whom went to Civil Defence and four went as soldiers. It means that the job has to be cut up between ten men and not four. That is the effect of it. You will have competition against the soldier. I do not think dating it back is the way to do it. The pledge I have given is that the Government is dealing with demobilisation of all these Services, both military and civilian, on a comprehensive scale, but I am not going to lead hon. Members to think it will be dealt with in this manner because it would not do any good. I am quite willing to strike out these people, but I warn you it is a dangerous principle. I prefer to let the small body of 30,000 be tied together with the military forces for the

time being until we deal with the general problem.

Sir Percy Harris: I must confess I am rather surprised at the undue importance attached to this particular piece of legislation. This is not a Bill, as I think the right hon. Gentleman made clear, to provide large scale employment for those in the Services. It is merely to make operative the arrangement made at the beginning of the war to reinstate people. Reinstatement presents an extraordinary number of difficulties. What we want to do is to allay the fears of all those people who are looking forward to the time when the war is over. They are worried as to what is going to happen when the war is over. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are working out a constructive demobilisation policy. If the men and women who served the State in its hour of crisis are included we shall be satisfied and we should not worry about the particular wording of the Clause.

Mr. Bevin: I have given that assurance.

Major Thorneycroft: I think that the Minister is right on this occasion. I find myself in a position of some embarrassment in opposing the Amendment so ably and eloquently moved, which I regard as almost a family affair. I would, however, urge the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft) not to press his Amendment very much further. I fully sympathise with the views which he has expressed and his desire to help the Civil Defence workers, but I do not believe that this is the way to do it. The Clause sets out to meet a pledge. In point of fact the pledge was given to that small number of Civil Defence workers who were included in the Act of 1941, and that was why they were included. If we extended the scope of what is already an extremely complicated Measure and took it out of the sphere of an attempt to meet a rather difficult pledge, and so raised it into a serious reconstruction Measure, I am certain that we should fail. In his speech to-day the Minister—and I did not agree with all of his speech the other day—

Mr. G. Griffiths: And he did not agree with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member either.

Major Thorneycroft: His speech to-day properly laid emphasis on the wider issues and the enormous problems of demobilisation and resettlement. I think that the problem of the Civil Defence workers would be better left to them, otherwise, some of the Service men coming back and attempting to get jobs under the Bill would find themselves in a rather difficult position. A certain amount of ill-feeling would be created as between one man and another. If we were to introduce the Civil Defence worker, who has been at home all the time—doing a valuable job, but still at home all the time—a Service man who thought he was going to get his job back and applied for it might be told by the employer: "No, I think Jones, who has been in Civil Defence in this town all the time, has a higher priority than you." That would not be a very pleasant situation. I hope that we shall once more find ourselves in agreement, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: I am rather surprised at the mental gyrations of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I wonder how he would apply his argument to the issuing of medals to Civil Defence workers, for which he and some of his colleagues are pressing. If those who have done service at home in Civil Defence, battling for the country against the enemy overhead, are entitled to medals, can we not ask that they should also be entitled to be included in the Bill, for what it is worth? I do not think this is a very valuable safeguard or consideration that my right hon. Friend is proposing. I do not want to emulate the hon. and gallant Member and try to debunk the whole thing but I would say that it would be much more suitable for us if the Government would only disclose their comprehensive plans for reconstruction. They do not disclose them, so what have we got? We have to accept a quarter of a loaf, instead of a whole loaf that we want. My right hon. Friend says: "I will give you a quarter of the loaf," namely, a promise of being reinstated in the job which the man held before he was called up, to 30,000 Civil Defence workers who happened to be directed under Ministry of Labour Orders. I wonder how many thousands of volunteers there are. Working on the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary gave the other day when he said

that a fifth of the Armed Forces were volunteers, are we to assume that the 30,000 are the conscripts and that 6,000 are the volunteers? If those are the proportions roughly, I would urge my right hon. Friend to include them in the Amendment. He would not be conceding much or resisting much if he were to do so.

Mr. Silverman: I think this is a suitable moment to ask the Minister of Labour a question in view of the argument which has developed. I am not seeking to try to move the Amendment on the Clause which, as has already been indicated, was not to be called, but I think that the point I wish to raise is relevant to the Minister's argument. I do not think that the Minister ought to withdraw protection from the people conscripted into Civil Defence. I see why he made the promise and I see its attractiveness from one point of view. I am sure he is right. Once this House has put a promise and a pledge into a piece of legislation, and people have acted on the faith of it, it would be wrong to withdraw it in order to meet a political situation which developed at a later time. I feel sure that the Minister would be right in not doing it. I want to ask him about the boys whom he has directed into the mines.

The Deputy-Chairman: rose—

Mr. Silverman: I am not going to speak to my Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot ask a question which is out of Order, because it could not be answered.

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps if I might be allowed to put the question, Mr. Williams, you would be in a better position to give a Ruling.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has already asked the question.

Mr. Silverman: I have not.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member said he was asking a question about boys in the mines, a subject which is outside the scope of the Bill. If he wants to put such a question he can do so any day, at Question time.

Mr. Silverman: If you say that, Mr. Williams, I am wrong, I shall not persist, but I was merely trying to apply the military argument to another class of persons


and to ask how the argument affected them. I am seeking to test the validity of an argument by reference to other people to whom, logically, the argument ought to apply. The suggestion that I am making—

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I really think I must take up the position that the type of worker which the hon. Member mentions, is outside the scope of the Bill and that therefore he cannot talk about them here.

Mr. Silverman: I am going to submit to you, Mr. Williams, that they are not outside the scope of the Bill at all. The scope of the Bill is defined in the Title and also in Clause 12 (2). If you will look at that Mr. Williams, I think I shall be able to persuade you that they are not outside the scope of the Bill. That at any rate is my argument. Its says, in Clause 12 (2):
Where (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) a person to whom this Act whose war service has ended performs whole-time services in consequence of a direction or written request made by or on behalf of the Minister or Ministry of Labour for Northern Ireland …
Certain persons were called up under the National Service Acts. When they were so called up they were in the service of the Crown and the Title of the Bill shows that it applies to people in the service of the Crown. When a person has been called up under the National Service Act he is at the service and disposal of the Crown.

The Deputy-Chairman: My Ruling is quite definite. These people are not in the service of the Crown.

Mr. Silverman: Of course not, but they were. That is why I am inviting your attention to the Clause because it refers to:
a person … whose war service has ended and is under the direction of the Minister.
What has happened in this case is that a whole group of persons are called up under the National Service Acts. They are then in the service of the Crown. Some of them—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is the point, they are not in the service of the Crown when they are called up, as I understand it.

Mr. Silverman: They are called up under the National Service Act. They are then directed by the Minister into this kind or that kind of work depending not on any Act of Parliament but merely on a ballot.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has given his case away by saying "this kind or that kind of work." One kind of work is into the service of the Crown. The other kind is not in the service of the Crown.

Mr. Silverman: That is precisely what this Sub-section says. If you will be good enough to look at the Sub-section, Mr. Williams, you will see exactly what my point is. It bears directly on what you have said. Where a person is not in the service of the Crown at all because he has been directed into other services by the Minister of Labour he is still under the Bill. That is the point I am making, that these persons still come under this Bill though not in the service of the Crown at all because they have been directed by the Minister elsewhere. These boys are not in the service of the Crown because as a result of a ballot they have been directed by the Minister elsewhere and are therefore, I submit, well within the scope and Title of this Bill. I am not at all sure that the Amendment I have put down was really necessary because it may very well be that these boys are in any event covered by Clause 12, Subsection (2). It is perfectly clear, I submit with respect, that they cannot be outside.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must stick to the Ruling that they are not in the service of the Crown, and that, therefore, they cannot be discussed here.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I am afraid I have not succeeded in making myself very clear. What I am suggesting is that the fact that a man is not in the service of the Crown is not conclusive of this point and that this Subsection shows it is not conclusive of this point because this Sub-section specifically brings into the protection of this Bill persons who are not in the service of the Crown. If the point is out of Order then this Sub-section is out of Order.

Major Manningham-Buller: Does not the National Service Act, 1939, provide


that when a calling up notice is served on a civilian he shall be deemed to be enlisted in the service of the Crown?

Mr. Silverman: Certainly. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. That is so. I do not think there can be any doubt that once a man has had a calling up notice served upon him he is at that moment in the service of the Crown.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must direct the hon. Member to page 10, Sub-section (2), which says:
.… as if it were a further period of service such as is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section six of this Act, and Sub-section (1) of this Section shall have effect accordingly.
I think that this discussion has gone into the argument in great detail. All my advice is that these people are not in the service of the Crown. Whether they have been for one second has been ruled out. It is my Ruling, and I stick to my Ruling.

Mr. Silverman: May I—

The Deputy-Chairman: All the time we are perpetually dealing with small points instead of getting on. I ask the hon. Member, now he has put a great many points, to accept my Ruling.

Mr. H. Thorneycroft: In view of the assurance given by the Minister that those people who joined as volunteers will be properly protected, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to insert:
(d) pilots who have served in the Air Transport Auxiliary.
I do this because I think this small class of persons is apt to be overlooked and omitted from legislation that is brought forward from time to time. They come in a special category in the sense that they are not eligible for service in the R.A.F. They come under the Ministry of Aircraft Production. They consist of a quite limited number, hundreds not thousands, of men and women who have been ferrying aircraft in many cases since the beginning of the war. Quite a considerable number of them have lost their lives in doing so. They do not have to meet the enemy in combat but apart from

that their daily task, weather permitting of course, is to ferry aircraft, it may be single engined, two engined, or four engined, perhaps three of four times from England and Scotland and Wales and various point of the Kingdom. These are persons who I think ought to be reckoned along with the Services and should be given most sympathetic consideration. They really do not come in the same category as some of the Civil Defence services because of the special nature of the task in which they are engaged. I hope my right hon. Friend is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to these pilots and include them within the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: This is a similar discussion to the protracted one we have gone through. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air will do something to look after these men.

Mr. Mander: These pilots have nothing do with the Secretary of State for Air. That is the whole point. They come under the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Bevin: I am not concerned whether they do, but they are part of the civil air services of the country and I am sure that the Minister when the time comes for the re-arrangement of Services, will look after them. I am sorry that I cannot attach them to this Bill. I attach no value to this Bill so far as that particular type of man is concerned. The bulk of them were in the Air Force before they went into this service, and, in so far as they were in the Air Force and in civil employment before that, they are covered by the Bill. If I open the door to, first, this section, and, then, that section, I nullify the effect of the Bill.
The Government are not going to neglect these people any more than they are going to neglect others, but this is not the way to deal with people who have, I will not say a short life, but a strain connected with their employment which makes that employment a short one in comparison with their total life. I am surprised at my hon. Friend, who has had close association with the Air Ministry and knows very well that the period for which persons can serve on duties like this is comparatively short. Surely, reinstatement is not the way to deal with these people. It is more a matter for a


pensions Measure, or something of a concrete nature like that. Such a proposal as this would mislead the men into thinking that they were getting something they were not getting. It is no solution to put them back into the Service when they come out of it. I shall be found to be a friend, who will deal with these people properly, but not through this Bill. I beg my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Mander: I quite appreciate that the provisions of this Measure are not going to be of enormous value to these persons, but I want to obtain for them anything that can be got, however small it may be, from any Bill before this House. That is why I have drawn attention to the services of this small number of people, who are often overlooked. However, in view of what my right hon. Friend says, and the suggestions—almost promises—that he has made, that they will be properly looked after, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gallacher: I wanted to say a few words on the Amendment which was moved just now, but I did not have a chance, because it was withdrawn. The Minister took on certain tasks, and, with those tasks, he took on certain obligations. It should be noted by Members opposite and, it may be, by Members on this side, that in taking on those tasks he took on a burden that no other Member of this House would have carried through. That is correct, but it is often forgotten. He took on a responsibility to put back into their jobs those whom he took out of their jobs. It is with that that this Clause is concerned. Why there should be any criticism of that, or any attempt to spread it out into something entirely different, I do not understand. I cannot understand why a Member on the other side, with a legal mind, should try to assist this side against the Minister, by saying that when men are called up they are in the Army. When they are called up they are put through a process before they are actually in the services of the Crown; they have the right of appeal, and may not go into the Services at all. The hon. and gallant Member

would never dream of saying that the lads in the pits are soldiers.

Major Manningham-Buller: Has the hon. Member read Section 10 of the National Service Act, 1939, which says a man is deemed to be enlisted when he is called up?

Mr. Gallacher: The Clause says "deemed to be enlisted," but they have to go through a process before they are actually in the service of the Crown. I say again that the Clause quite clearly does what the Minister promised to do, that is, that he will endeavour to put back into jobs those whom he takes out of their jobs. That is what the Bill is for, and the Minister should have the support, not only of this side but of that side of the House in his heavy task of trying to carry this through.

Mr. Astor: There is one point on which I am not quite clear. Are there any limits to the type of jobs to which the Act applies? Could, for instance, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) come into the Ministry of Health after the war and demand to be reinstated as Parliamentary Under-Secretary? Could we be told which employers come under the Bill and which do not? There is a real point in that.

Mr. McCorquodale: I did give, on Second Reading, a specific assurance that the State was prepared to accept the obligations of private employers. With regard to reinstatement in Government service after the war, I think we had better wait and see.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Meaning of expression "former employer.")

Dr. Peters: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out "within," and to insert "during at least."
The object of the Amendment is to raise a matter of some importance, which I dare say my right hon. Friend will say bristles with difficulties. The correspondence which he has had with the Council of the Law Society does raise the point whether there should be a minimum time. A man who has changed his employment very shortly, it may be only a few days,


before his calling up, is not in the same position as a person who has been employed much longer. I think the Minister may possibly be able to give some assurrance that he will deal with it under the regulations which he will have the power to make under Clause 16, and I hope he may give that assurance to meet the position.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I hope the Minister is not going to accept this Amendment. I would give a concrete case why he should not accept it. I had a man in my division who was working down the mine. A doctor told him he must come out of the mine, because he was not physically fit for the work. He came out of the mine and asked the management if they would find him a job on the top. The management said, "We have not got any." This man was employed on the railway the next week. He was called up for examination and passed A.1 into the Army, by the same doctor who told him he was not fit to work down the pit. He was employed on the railway only for about eight days. If the Minister is going to accept this Amendment that man will not have any chance at all.

Mr. McCorquodale: I cannot ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. The consideration is really the one we discussed with regard to the Civil Defence forces conscripted under the 1941 Act. The opinion of the House appeared to be one of unanimity that, having once granted rights under a Bill, they should be left to take that course again. In the 1939 Act we granted reinstatement rights to these people with regard to the last job they had before they were called-up without any limit as to how long they had been employed in it. If we accepted the Amendment, it would be taking away rights of a very large number of people, and I therefore suggest that the same observations apply to this as to the other case, and I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Molson: This would not, I take it, apply to the employer if the man had passed out of his service before he joined the Armed Forces, even though he had been employed at some moment during the four weeks before service.

Mr. McCorquodale: The obligation is only on the last employer before he joined

the Forces. There is no obligation on the previous employer.

Mr. Molson: Supposing that he was unemployed before he joined the Forces?

Mr. McCorquodale: If he had been unemployed less than four weeks before he was called-up and had not been employed somewhere else more recently, the man with whom he was employed before he became unemployed would be the employer under the Bill.

Dr. Peters: I understand from the discussion how difficult it would be to put the Amendment into effect, and having regard to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, at the end, to insert:
or if such employer can show that by reason of the applicant's misconduct he terminated his employment the employer by whom the applicant was last employed within four weeks prior to entering the employment immediately preceding the beginning of his war service.
The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with a small point which may cause some difficulty and friction. Let me put the case of a man employed in the four weeks preceding his call-up for a short time by one employer. They had a tremendous quarrel and they parted. It would be rather unfortunate if the burden were thrown upon that employer, and the purpose of the Amendment is to provide that where that has happened the applicant can put the obligation on the preceding employer by whom he was employed in that period.

Mr. Bellenger: I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the Amendment. I think that the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment will realise that it would almost be impossible to work it. We should not put provisions into any Bill which would be likely to cause considerable litigation. Considering the nature of the Bill—and we all understand the difficulties that will be encountered unless the Government come forward with the plans that the Minister has promised to-day of, what I understand to be, a full employment policy—we do not want to clutter up the Measure with Amendments like the present one. We had better let it rest


where it is. What would be the result if the Amendment were included? The war has gone on for nearly five years, and may go on for a considerable number of years. We have to go back to establish certain facts, namely, that four weeks before the man was called up he had some quarrel with his employer, who dismissed him for misconduct. The employers can always establish some sort of a case that they have dismissed a man for misconduct but I think, if the war does go on for that time, and this is included, the only effect will be to provide a lot of work for lawyers, and I would rather provide work for the men.

Mr. McCorquodale: The Amendment as drafted, of course, we could not accept, but I do not think I could advise the Committee to accept the idea behind it. Suppose a man has been dismissed for misconduct just before the war. Since that time he has fought for his country for five years. I should have thought in a normal case the employer would be liable to overlook any small fault for which a man was dismissed before the war, and before the service he has given to the Crown. If, of course, he had been dismissed for something very serious—supposing he was the cashier and had embezzled the funds—it could not be accepted as reasonable and practicable that he should be reinstated as cashier. I do not think anyone would agree to that. Therefore, the employer is safeguarded against the more difficult type of case. I hope, for those reasons, the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I think the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment should rise and make an apology to the Committee.

Major Manningham-Buller: I will rise, but not to take the advice of the hon. Member opposite, whose acquaintance with this Bill is not very deep, if I may say so. The object of the Amendment was quite clear. It was not the object attributed to it by the hon. Member opposite, but I will not go further into that. However, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I would like with the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Griffiths: I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a question I put to him when he was dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill. This will affect a lot of local authorities all over the British Isles. The Government have taken into their employ hundreds of employees of local authorities, clerks and other people. Some of them have been in the employment of the Government now for over two years. Will the Government be regarded as their last employer, or are the Government going to say "Your last employer was the Royston Urban District although we called you and have paid your salary or wages all along the line"? The Parliamentary Secreary said he would answer that point later, and I feel that now is the time to answer it, because if Clause 7 is passed I cannot put my question at any other time.
In replying to an hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary said he could not accept this four weeks. I am very pleased he did so. I want to know whether these people whom the Government have called, not directly into the Forces but into Civil Defence and from the Civil Defence into the Forces, when they come back, are to go to their last employer? If they are going back to their last employer, then the Government must find these people employment, and they will not go back to the local authorities, county councils, municipal authorities and urban districts all over the country. As a member of the Urban District Councils' National Executive, I have been asked to put this point. They want to know where they stand when the men come back from the Forces and not out of Civil Defence. If you had taken them out of Civil Defence and sent them back to the local authorities, and then from the local authorities to the Forces, they would have belonged to the local authorities as employees. If you shifted men from Civil Defence back to the local authority and then from the local authority into the Forces they would belong to the local authority as employees. I cannot see how they would belong to local authorities when they have been out of the service of the authorities for, in some cases, more than two years.

The Attorney-General: The position which the hon. Member has put is that of a man who having been a local authority servant, goes, say, to the N.F.S.—that is, a national service which is under the Crown—then goes into the Armed Forces. Who, asks the hon. Member, was the last employer before the man went into the Forces? The answer is that it is the Crown and, therefore, the man comes under the pledge given just now by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It would be for the Crown to look after him. No doubt he would want to get back to the local authority, but the Crown would behave as other employers have to behave.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you. I will have a cup of tea on the strength of that.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Attorney-General explain the converse case of a man who is employed in Civil Defence work by a local authority, who is called up and goes into the Armed Forces? The Civil Defence Service will, of course, be disbanded after the war. Is the local authority then to be under the obligation of dismissing its permanent staff in order to make room for such men?

The Attorney-General: That is the type of case which arises under the Bill on the question of whether it was reasonable or practicable to offer the man an alternative job.

Mr. Bellenger: It seems to me that we are in a rather strange situation. The Attorney-General has cited the case of the man leaving a local authority, passing on to the Civil Defence Service and then on to the Armed Forces of the Crown. He said the man would have a right under this Bill when he leaves the Armed Forces. He stated that the employer who has to compensate the man is the Crown.

The Attorney-General: I want to make it clear that he has no right under the Bill but that he would come under the pledge which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave.

Mr. Bellenger: The Committee must understand what right the man really does have. Let us assume that the man goes back to the Crown. What will the Crown do? Suppose the National Fire Service, or the Civil Defence Service is in process of being disbanded; does that mean that

the man's compensatory rights will amount to a money payment? There will be no employment for him because these Services, I imagine, will be disbanded when the time comes for demobilisation. Could the Attorney-General tell us, even though the Crown are not included in the Bill, whether the man will be able to get a money compensation the same as a civilian employer has to pay if he does not reinstate the employee under this Bill? A man will want to know, not the words uttered in this House but what he is going to get out of it, employment or compensation in lieu of employment.

Mr. McCorquodale: I should like to correct the hon. Member in case that goes out from this Committee. The Bill does not lay down that, if an employer cannot employ a man, he has to pay him compensation. That does not enter into the Bill at all. If he cannot employ him, that is the end of it.

Mr. Bellenger: So we have got to this point. We have got to the real value of the Bill itself. I have long had doubts about the value of certain guarantees under the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary now says that if the Crown, or any employer, cannot offer a man employment he can then pass him on to someone who will give him something—perhaps the Public Assistance Committee. I would put this point to the Minister in all friendliness that, if the Crown can offer nothing more under the Bill than the Attorney-General has offered us, it is a further argument for him and the Government to produce plans more substantial than the words uttered by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Bevin: It is most unfortunate that these speeches should be made. It does not matter about Parliament, but I think it is quite unfortunate from the point of view of the men in the Services. No Member of the Government has ever for a moment pretended that this Bill provides employment. I have said three times to-day that it is merely trying to make an Act of Parliament work, nothing more or less. My hon. Friend was in the House when that Act was carried in 1939 and never rose to say what was going to happen. The Department was saddled with the administration of the Act and there was no machinery to carry it out. Thousands of men have gone


into the Forces in the belief that that Clause really meant what it said. I have said over and over again that to attempt to lead men to believe that the Clause secured them a return to their jobs was wrong. I have tried to clear the ground in a limited way by explaining how much the Clause means and how far it goes. It is grossly unfair to suggest that the Government regard this as a solution of the great problem of resettlement or that it is intended to provide a complete resettlement for men returning from the Forces. I ask my hon. Friend to be fair. I do not mind him scoring off me, but I do not like men to be misled who are perhaps just going into battle. I would ask hon. Members to have regard to the words they utter. The Government have no intention of letting the men down or of regarding this as their final obligation, but to work out a Measure better than the Act of 1939, because it clothes it and gives it something to work with. I ask my hon. Friend not to imply that the Government regard this as their final conclusion and say they must produce other schemes. Three times to-day I have indicated that other Measures will be brought before the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: This discussion has gone far enough. We are getting far too wide on this Clause.

Sir I. Albery: On a point of Order. You have allowed the Minister, Major Milner, to make certain statements, some of which are definitely controversial, on matters arising indirectly out of the Clause. In these circumstances are we not to be allowed to reply? The Minister has referred to what occurred on the Second Reading, as have other hon. Members. I do not wish to go back on the Second Reading, but certain statements have been made which should be further elucidated.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made certain remarks, and I permitted the right hon. Gentleman to make a short reply. In strictness he went farther than he was entitled to go, and I cannot allow further debate on those lines, which would partake of a Second Reading nature. Any hon. Gentleman who wishes to deal with points arising out of the Clause will be in Order.

Sir I. Albery: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in the difficulty in which they find themselves. The difficulty which arises on this Clause is due to the fact that in a certain period some well-intentioned but ill-considered legislation was passed, and we are now trying to put it right. I regard it as imperative that we should take every care as this Bill passes from the House that ex-Service men should be under no delusion about what it contains and does not contain. The right hon. Gentleman will later have an opportunity of explaining, especially in view of the remarks he has just made, why the Title of the Bill is Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: I am glad that this Clause has not been amended because I know of men who have been called up after having been employed for a considerable time with a firm which went bankrupt, and who for a week or two before they were called up were employed by another firm. If the Clause had been altered as was suggested, those men would have had no employer to call upon for employment. I appreciate that it does not automatically follow that the employer referred to in the Clause will be in a position to absorb men, but everything will be done to get employers to employ men on their return if it is reasonably possible to do so. We know that there are circumstances in which it will be impossible for employers automatically to take men back. Nobody understands that better than the Minister. I want to warn Members that when they are dealing with a Clause such as this, although there may have been a measure of collaboration between the young Tories and myself on the Education Bill, I will have nothing whatever to do with them on this question.

Sir A. Southby: This discussion has I think shown the sort of difficulty that does arise in this matter. I certainly accept the pledge given by the Minister to the effect that the Government do mean in the case of Government employment to do their very best to find a man a job, but what we are all trying to do is to improve what many of us think is not a very good Bill. It was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), voicing what I am sure he believed would be the effect of the Bill, should be told he was not


being fair. I think he was being fair to the Serviceman, and I would like to emphasise that it is up to us not to let the ex-Service man think he is going to get something which he cannot get.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Reinstatement Committees, Umpire and Deputy Umpires.)

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, to leave out "Minister" and to insert "Lord Chancellor."
I would like to say at once that I hope the object of my hon. Friends in putting down this Amendment will not be misunderstood or misinterpreted in any quarter. We have to look forward, I suppose, sometimes with some degree of optimism and sometimes with some degree of pessimism. Looking forward with some degree of pessimism we must realise that Ministers of Labour come and go. I hope the present Minister will not regard this Amendment as implying any reflection upon him. The whole object is to secure that the Reinstatement Committees and the umpires appointed under this Bill should not only be impartial but should be free from all possible criticism. It seems to me that if we leave the power of appointment of all the members of the Committee to the Minister, the personnel of those Committees appointed by the Minister, whether he belongs to one party or another party, will be open to some criticism from certain people who appear before the Committees. People are appointed to the pensions appeal tribunals by the Lord Chancellor, and I suggest that is an example that might be followed with advantage. If it is followed and these people are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, it seems to me that the Committees will stand beyond reproach and there will be no possibility of any unfair criticism being directed against them or against the Minister at the time of the appointment, whoever that Minister may be, and no matter to what party he may belong.

The Attorney-General: May I point out that Lord Chancellors, like Ministers, come and go, so one cannot regard that as a

completely convincing argument in favour of the Amendment. On the whole we would not advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. In the case of health insurance committees, unemployment insurance committees, and hardship committees under the National Service Act, appointments are made by the Minister. It is to be noted that there are panels of chairmen, panels of people to represent employers, panels to represent employed persons. The Minister not only appoints those panels but selects persons from them for these different committees. I cannot think that the Lord Chancellor would regard it as appropriate that he should be asked to undertake that work.
Reference was made by my hon. and gallant Friend to the pensions appeal tribunals, and he said, quite rightly, that the Lord Chancellor appointed not only the Chairman but also the medical representative. That was surely a rather different case. In that case, the decisions appealed from were those of the Minister of Pensions, and it was thought right that he should not have anything to do with the appointment of the appeal tribunals. It followed the precedent of the last war. Though I do not say that one could lay down hard-and-fast principles in these matters, that was the reason why that procedure was adopted in the pensions appeal tribunals. In this case, the dispute will be between an employer of labour and an employed person, and the tribunal is a composite body, containing representatives of both parties. We shall advise the Committee to follow the precedent in the Act to which I have referred.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The speech of the Attorney-General was very interesting, but I would like to hear about the merits of the proposal as it stands. We know that the Minister of Labour can act only through the medium of local representatives of the Department, and they are put in a very invidious position, because they have other work to do which brings them into contact, on another matter, with the same lot of people they are dealing with. If you could get away from the Department in the manner suggested in the Amendment I should have thought it made it easier for the administration and not more difficult. I do not see what the purpose is of keeping it all inside departmental control.

Mr. Bevin: It has been found to work very practically. A separate Department of State deals with all these panels and with these semi-judicial functions that are operated in the Department. It has been going on since 1909 and there has been no complaint. It has done its work well, and I really think there is no reason to change it now.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Peters: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, after "Committees", to insert:
and such chairman shall be of counsel or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing.
Having regard to the very wide jurisdiction conferred on Reinstatement Committees, the Council of the Law Society have suggested that the chairman of every committee should be a barrister or solicitor of some standing. There is ample precedent for this, and I would refer hon. Members to the body of referees set up under the Approved Societies Regulations, 1938, and the Contributory Pensions (References) Regulations, 1937, and also to the practice of appointing legal chairmen of the Court of Referees set up under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are opposed to this Amendment, and the speech in favour of it has increased our opposition. When anyone in this House uses phrases about people of "standing" it makes us sit up and take notice.

Dr. Peters: The hon. Member will forgive me. All that I meant to say by "not less than seven years' standing" in the Amendment was experience, not standing in the sense of any class distinction, but I cut my remarks short because of the time.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry if as a result of the lack of time and my hon. Friend cutting his remarks as short as possible he has been left open to misunderstanding. I was dealing with what he said, not with what he intended to say, but the observation I shall make still applies. We do not agree that because people have had legal training they have any more standing than other people who have held public positions. Our experience of this kind of administration teaches us that in many cases people with great experience in the industrial world, with standing in the industrial world, who have obtained the confidence of the people within the

locality where they have been serving in a public representative capacity, have often more standing, and people have more confidence that they will do the right thing, than in the case of people in the legal profession.
In addition to that my hon. Friends take second place to no one in public life, and this includes the legal profession, with regard to their capacity to conduct meetings. I know no better school for conducting meetings of this kind than the trade union and Labour movement. People who have come through the very hard school of managing the meetings in the industrial centres of this country, become as competent as anyone else to preside at meetings of this kind. In addition to that, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts the Minister of Labour, not necessarily the present Minister of Labour but his predecessors, have constantly invited people out of the trade union movement, and men who have had experience in chambers of commerce and employers' associations, to preside at meetings. Therefore we hope that the Minister will not give way on this. We look on it as dangerous. We want to keep this Bill out of the hands of the legal profession as much as possible. We hope the Minister will resist this Amendment.

Sir A. Southby: My experience of the legal profession has not been as unfortunate as the bitter speech of my hon. Friend would lead us to suppose that his has been. I think we are all sometimes rather frightened of the legal profession and sometimes we are glad that they exist. I oppose the Amendment because I think it would be better to have a wider choice, not one limited to the legal profession. I could not help thinking, however, that the hon. Member's speech was rather wounding to many members of the legal profession. It appears that he does not object to standing when it is the sort of standing he likes, but when it is the sort of standing somebody else likes it is all wrong. He paid a well deserved tribute to the great trades union movement, but I imagine he would differentiate between some members of the trade union movement who, like the Minister, are widely respected through the country, because they are trade union leaders of great standing, and others. When my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Dr. Peters) moved this Amendment I


think he was trying to say, and I thought he said it very plainly, that he wanted members of the legal profession who had standing, men of standing similar to that, though not so great perhaps as that, of the Minister himself. The hon. Member himself is a member of standing in the party to which he belongs or he would not be sitting where he is. I suggest that he really need not be quite so bitter about things like standing.

Mr. Arthur Jenkins: I think it would be a great blunder if the Amendment were pressed. If it is pressed, I hope the Minister will resist it. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) as having some standing in his party. That is true. There are many solicitors who have standing in their profession but who would be quite incapable of doing this job. The main quality that will be required is industrial experience, and it is difficult to find a solicitor who has great industrial experience. It could well be argued that solicitors as a class are not the most suitable people for this job. It would be a proper thing to leave the selection in the hands of the Minister of Labour. His Department, as specialists in this kind of thing, have great experience, and they will be able to find people who have both standing and experience in their occupations or professions.

Mr. Bevin: I trust that this Amendment will be withdrawn. In obtaining these chairmen we want the widest possible field of selection. We must select those who can give the time and who have judicial ability and—a most important quality—a sense of conciliation, because on bodies like this more is often done through settlement than by giving decisions. We want to have the widest possible selection, without regard to professions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mander: In setting up this tribunal, we are establishing an outside representative body which is, very properly, going to interfere with the uncontrolled despotism of the employer. It is going to decide whether he is carrying out his duty as an employer, reasonably and practicably. That is a very valuable precedent. I

should like to see organisations set up in all factories to ensure that justice is done, that there is no victimisation, and that there is a feeling of good will and satisfaction with the administration. I realise that this is not the occasion for dilating on a social reform of this kind, but I am very glad that the precedent is set to-day.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Jurisdiction of Reinstatement Committees.)

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 7, line 13, after "shall," to insert:
after giving the employer concerned an opportunity of being heard.
This Amendment and the next Amendment in my name and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) go together, as they both raise the same point. I am glad to say that they do not raise any trade union question.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. and gallant Member in a trade union?

Major Manningham-Buller: Yes, a very powerful one.

Mr. Bevin: And no non-unionist is allowed to work.

Major Manningham-Buller: I hope that after those pleasantries I can start. I hope that these Amendments will be accepted by the Government. They are merely drafting Amendments. As the Clause stands, it will apparently give the committee the right to determine any question whatsoever, without giving the employer an opportunity of being heard. Similarly, Sub-section (2) starts:
Where the committee are satisfied that default has been made.
There is no provision there, either, for giving the employers any hearing at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not deserve a hearing."] That may be, but most people in this country think differently. The hon. Member opposite thinks that the system ought to be changed because we have had it for a very long time, and this Amendment merely provides for the perpetuation of that system by the insertion of these words.

The Attorney-General: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment. I think it quite unnecessary. It would be undesirable to put in words saying that employers must have oppor-


tunities of being heard, because it is quite obvious that both sides must have opportunities of being heard. The proceedings before these committees will fall to be dealt with under paragraph (1, b) of Clause 16, which gives power to make regulations in regard to procedure, but I can assure the Committee that those regulations will provide, in the ordinary sort of procedure, for both parties being heard.

Major Manningham-Buller: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I add that it struck me that in Sub-section (1) there was provision for the committee hearing the applicant, but no provision, I thought, for hearing the other side.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Peters: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, at the end, to insert:
and such person shall have the right of legal representation.
Lawyers are not liked by the Committee to-day and I am rather fearful in putting this Amendment forward. It does not matter whether you have a lawyer of standing or not, he may be totally inexperienced, but when there is a tendency towards whittling down the rights of people and regimenting them as much as we have done—though of necessity, during the war—you should give applicants a right to legal representation. It has always been a right in this country to be legally represented and in these cases, which may, in fact, involve amounts of money, and which may even go before the High Court for decision, applicants should be able to employ counsel or solicitors if they wish.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are opposed to this suggestion, and our opposition arises out of our experience. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act there is machinery which has functioned very efficiently in matters connected with this kind of thing. The same thing applies to the National Service Acts. We have had very few complaints up to now of the functioning of the machinery set up by the National Service Acts, and I said, on behalf of my hon. Friends on the Second Reading, that our main aim is to keep the administration of this Act out of the hands of the legal profession as much as we possibly can. We have had experience of that in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and other Acts, from which we have suffered very

severely. It may be said that people holding managerial and administrative positions, like managing directors and others, will be affected by this Bill and should have the opportunity to be legally represented. We admit that our people will be adequately represented provided they are members of a trades union, and those holding managerial and administrative positions will no doubt be members of their own professional organisations and able to arrange for some member of their professional institution to represent them. We hope that the administration will be kept on the same basis as that of the Unemployment Insurance and the National Service Acts. We are sure that the people will retain their confidence in the machinery provided that the Measure is administered in the same way.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. I want no reference to this in the Bill at all. In regard to the rules of procedure, referred to by an hon. and gallant Member, we shall have to give a little further consideration to the matter and I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the Report stage. I would like to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Smith) that anything that we do under this Bill, owing to its peculiar character and the nature of the problems with which it seeks to deal, must not be taken as a precedent for the procedure under any other social service Act. If this were to be a social service Act like the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Government could not yield to the proposal. But there is this difficulty. Under this Bill the Reinstatement Committee can award compensation, which is taking the money from citizen "A" and ordering it to be paid to citizen "B." This is a legal proviso which is a substitute for the court of summary jurisdiction to some extent. Having regard to that situation, I do not think that it would be wise for me to refuse to consider some provision which would look after that type of case in the regulations when they are drafted. I shall be interpreting the feelings of the Committee when I say that no one in this House wants regulations to be drafted which will encourage before a Reinstatement Committee anything in the nature of the usual legal procedure or the kind of process that usually goes on. When a person is outside his association—and this goes right up to managers and


to all sorts of people who will be involved—or if he is an employer, the procedure is required to be in such a form that he may be represented by a member of the legal profession and that the inquiry will operate on the basis of a friendly procedure rather than otherwise. If that principle is accepted—and I can look into it in order to be able to make a clear statement as to the form the regulation shall take, between now and the Report stage—I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I can see, unless the Minister is very careful when considering this matter, that it will be opening a wide door. It may be that well-placed people will be able to employ the very best legal assistance, and that will mean that ordinary people like ourselves who cannot afford to employ any legal assistance will be prejudiced in comparison. Seeing that this Bill is carrying out an undertaking given by the Government that all people will, as far as is reasonable and practicable, be reinstated in their pre-enlistment employment, I am hoping that the scales are not going to be weighted by the assurance given by the Minister, because one man will be able to afford the best legal advice while another man, simply because he is poor, cannot afford it.

Mr. Butcher: I was a little concerned, in listening to my right hon. Friend, because I think the case for keeping the lawyers out of this is far more heavy than he led the Committee to think. We are dealing here with an industrial problem and we want, so far as we can, not to introduce these nice questions of law. My own view is that where we have seen lawyers interfering in industrial Acts—the Workmen's Compensation Act and the recent Coal Award—it has not helped the industrial community to get along with the job. I hope, therefore, that in giving this matter further consideration the right hon. Gentleman will realise the very strong feeling that he would be well advised to keep the lawyers out of this altogether—if I may say so with great respect, Major Milner.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I regret having to intervene in this discussion but, as a member of one of the professions which have been discussed rather fully in this connection, I feel that a word,

at any rate, ought to be said. The profession of an advocate is a very honourable one—

Mr. Kirkwood: I never heard that before.

Mr. Hogg: We are all interested in being paid, and nobody is more anxious than the hon. Member to see those whom he represents properly paid for difficult work. The profession of an advocate is an honourable and very responsible one indeed. It is one which places upon the person who practises it a greater moral strain than most, as most of us who have been through that school know. It is also an indispensable one for the administration of justice. There are many people in the industrial world, many very wealthy people, many very powerful people, very effective in industry, many people in all walks of society who cannot speak for themselves. It is not everybody who has "the gift of the gab," the facility of a trade union official or a barrister, and it is those people who require the help of an advocate. I do not want to belittle the great work in the realm of advocacy which is done by trade union officials, but there are many individual workmen and many employers who do not belong to these powerful organisations on one side or the other. They do require the help of a responsible advocate, and when they get that help, they ought to have the help of one who is bound by the honourable rules of conduct of a very ancient trade union. The ethical rules of advocacy—the duty to the Crown, the duty to your opponent, the duty to the court—are things which are inbred in those who have passed through this difficult test before they are allowed to practise.
Where representation is to be allowed at all in matters affecting justice to any individual, of whatever class, there a responsible advocate ought to be allowed to practise his profession in accordance with the recognised rules of advocacy. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) expressed a fear that great wealth might play an undue part. I am bound to say that has not been, on the whole, my experience of legal processes. I would like to give him this reassurance. On the whole the members of the profession, giving what he described with courtesy as the very best legal advice, do usually protect themselves by demanding fees of such a


character that puts it quite out of the question that anybody would be tempted to employ them in a case of this kind; they would have to put up with someone like me.

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) raised a rather important point, to which I would like to add another aspect. I am a little alarmed lest what is to be a privilege should become the rule. I think it would be deplorable if it was made apparent to the ordinary applicant that in a case of this kind he would gain an extra advantage if he had an advocate which he would not have if he went alone. The courts must see that the applicant, whether he is able to plead his case with force or not, will get justice and fair play. It would be a disadvantage if it went out from this House that any privilege would be gained by having an advocate that was not there for the man who could not afford an advocate. If a poor person feels he must have an advocate it will put an extra burden on him in making his appeal, because he will have to pay the cost of his appeal, whereas it might not be necessary at all if he was sure he would get the same consideration without an advocate.

Mr. Magnay: There is a great deal to be said for the legal profession as friends of the poor. Some would readily assist a man who was perhaps incoherent and illiterate to put forward his case. My experience of the courts for 25 years confirms my opinion that there are many people who cannot give the salient facts of any matter. To vilify the legal profession is altogether against my experience. Take the case of girls on Tyneside, who have been sent away because they are mobile—whatever that means. I am quite sure that many would never have had to go had they not been scared to death of the courts and lost their powers of speech when asked to state their case. That I know, because I have got the facts from them in my own house quite easily in 10 minutes. They were terrified of the courts. It is a great advantage to have the opportunity of putting the facts clearly and succinctly so that the courts will be able to come to the right decision. It is the last fact that matters; a case is never heard until all the facts have been brought out. I

had charge of all the workmen's compensation cases on the south side of the Tyne for many years, and I knew how serious it might be if the facts germane to the issue being discussed were not given clearly. Therefore, I hope it will he possible for the legal profession to be allowed to come forward as friends, just as they do under the Poor Persons Act. In a matter like this I am sure a great many lawyers would take a very nominal fee, perhaps no fee at all, in order to get the facts clearly stated.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member does not seem to understand what we are discussing. There is general agreement on all sides that those who are coming before the committees will have representation. What we are insisting on is that the representation shall be of such a character as will eliminate professionalism. The hon. Member suggests that, just as a trade union official or a member of the Communist Party would be prepared to go into court or on to one of these committees and present a case for a particular individual without payment of any kind, members of this honourable profession will do the same thing. You will get no participation by the legal profession except on the basis of professional fees. The members of this honourable profession are swimming around all the time, like hungry sharks ready to snap here and snap there wherever there is any appetising bait. I remember having a debate with a member of the legal profession who was once Solicitor-General.

The Chairman: rose—

Mr. Gallacher: It is only an illustration.

The Chairman: I cannot allow it unless it is material to the Amendment.

Mr. Gallaeher: I am not against legal men coming on to a Committee if they come on as honest men. The Solicitor-General in debate with me said, "Who will do the dirty work under Socialism?" I said: "There will be no dirty work because we will change the whole character—"

The Chairman: That does not appear to arise on the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I have no objection to legal men. I want them wherever it is the feeling of an individual that a legal man would best represent him, but it should be put in the rules and regulations


that there must not be any kind of professionalism.

Dr. Peters: I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance of what he will do between now and Report. I should like to say to hon. Members opposite, as one who has been connected with the law for some 40 years, that I have given more than half my life to poor persons and I am certain that these cases which will come before the courts and Reinstatement Committees will be dealt with adequately by people of my own type who are quite willing to give their services.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir I. Albery: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I desire to ask the Government Whip whether he will consider if it is not an opportune moment to report Progress. The two next Amendments, which are in my name, are of considerable importance and would involve a large change in the Bill. Perhaps we may have some indication of how long it is intended to sit.

Mr. McCorquodale: We were anxious to get up to Clause 16, as there is a good deal of business to be done on the next Sitting Day. There are no Amendments down to Clauses 12 to 15, and we had hoped to finish the Amendments on the other Clauses in a short time.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir I. Albery: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out from "make," to "having," in line 19, and to insert "the following order."
This and the next Amendment, to leave out paragraph (c), raise a very important question and if accepted would involve a considerable change in the structure of the Bill. I am moving the Amendment because it is my sincere belief that it is in the interests of the ex-Service man. The Bill provides that where a bad employer has not been willing to carry out his duty and has not offered employment to one of his former employees when he returns from service, the Reinstatement Committee can decide upon one of two courses. They can either direct that this bad employer shall take the man back for six months, or direct that he shall pay the man his wages for six months as compensation. I can

conceive nothing more unpleasant and less useful to all concerned than that a man who has come back from serving his country should be directed back into the employment of a bad employer who does not want to employ him for the limited period of six months. He would be far better placed if he were told right away, "We have found that your employer is not a good employer and is not prepared to carry out his duty; we have, therefore, decided that he is to pay you six months' wages as compensation, and you are at liberty, with the full help of the Ministry of Labour, to try and fix yourself up in some suitable job." Members opposite have frequently said that there is nothing a man dislikes so much as being out of employment and that what he wants most is a job. I agree with that entirely, but there is such a thing as having a job which is not useful to him, that handicaps him in making his future arrangements. That is not helpful to him or to his employer, and, what is perhaps even more important, it is not useful to the community.
It is better that this kind of case should be dealt with by making the employer pay the penalty. The mere fact that he has a decision of that kind given against him will be a black mark which will not improve his general standing. One important point arises with which I think perhaps the Minister may deal in his reply. There are cases where it is not so much a question of deciding that an employer is a bad employer who is not willing to make employment available when he can, but a question as to which out of two or three employees he ought to take back into employment. It may be that the Minister will say that the alteration I propose would result in there being no machinery to decide that important point. I would suggest that if the Amendments are made, the Minister could easily between now and the Report stage, bring up a Clause to deal with that aspect of the case.

Sir A. Southby: I do not want to detain the Committee more than a moment, but I do want to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. The desire behind this Bill is to settle men happily and amicably into employment. I know the Amendments on the Paper seem rather drastic and revolutionary, and I have not much hope


that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will accept them, but I do hope he will consider the idea which lies behind them and see whether he can do something on the Report stage to carry them into effect. It seems absurd to force a man on a bad employer. It can only lead to an infinity of trouble for the employer and the man. If a man who comes back from the Forces, tired and browned off, is forced on a bad employer nothing but trouble can result. It would be better after inquiry into the circumstances that the tribunal should be able to decide that it is impossible for such a man to settle happily in such employment, but that he is entitled to make a claim under the Bill.

Mr. Bellenger: It is usual at this stage of the proceedings for hon. Members to meet black looks if they intervene in discussion and apparently delay the progress of the Bill, but I am one of those who believe that when this House is passing legislation, we ought to look at it very carefully to find out first what the Government mean by the words they have inserted in the Bill, and secondly to decide in our own minds whether those words are going to have the desired effect. What is the desired effect which the Government wish to achieve in this case? My right hon. Friend the Minister suggested that as a second front was about to be opened we should not say anything to lead men to believe that when they come back it will be to a country not fit for heroes. My hon. Friend opposite has put a very substantial point. These men do want employment. I am certain they have had quite enough of the type of employment in which they are ordered to go here or go there, and they will not want to serve an employer who can make life hell for them if he is forced to take them back.
I would far rather, in the prevailing circumstances, make a substantial money payment in cases like that, and I think the men would prefer it too. Do not let us forget that the Government have not disclosed their intentions in regard to full employment. It has always been a tradition in this country that labour was free to choose its own employment and it would be something to the disadvantage of labour if it were forced to go back to an unwilling employer.
I am bound to say that I do not think

that the Bill, as it now stands, is going to achieve its effect. We must take the Brill for what it is, namely, a general assertion that, as far as is possible, the men will go back to their old employment. In those cases, and I should say that they will be in the minority, in which employers say "I do not want you back," the labour, like water, will find its own level, particularly in the immediate post-war years, when I think the circumstances will be such that there will be a considerable demand for labour. I do not rely on the Bill or on this Clause to give the men the full employment that they want. Therefore, I would urge my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment upon the Minister. I do not suppose he will accept it. I urge them to be satisfied with the case which they have put up, and which will go out to the country so that employers in general will know that they must try as they did in the last war, voluntarily, under the King's Roll for example, to pay regard to the services which men and women are giving to the country. Employers will do it, without any Clause or Amendment such as has been moved. We understood that the Crown were not included in the Bill. If the Government will tell us that the Crown are to be placed under exactly the same obligations as the private employer, to pay compensation if they do not find jobs, perhaps we shall be more satisfied than I was a little while ago, when the Minister jumped on me for trying to score points. I do not want to score points. All I want to do is to elicit from the Government how far they intend the Bill to be a reality.

Mr. Molson: I find myself in considerable agreement with what has been said by the hon. Member and I feel that the Amendment brings out very clearly the special defect of the Bill. It makes a great many of us think that the Bill will prove completely unworkable and entirely unsatisfactory, because, in the case of the vast majority of the men who have been in the Forces, they will be immediately taken back by their employers when they return. The only purpose of the Bill is to bring pressure to bear and to try to insist that a certain number of men who would not otherwise be taken back shall be taken back into employment.
In the circumstances immediately after the war, if an employer is unwilling to take a man back, there will be something


wrong either with the employer or with the man. In his Second Reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary replied to a point which had been made that there ought to be an opposite obligation on the man to go back to his employer, by saying that a disgruntled employee would not be a happy employee and that it would be better for all parties concerned if a change were made. What applies on the one side is likely to apply on the other. I cannot believe that a relationship between employer and employed where the man is forced back upon an employer who does not want to receive him, will be satisfactory to either party. I see the Attorney-General on the Front bench, which reminds me that the Bill actually attempts to give specific performance for personal service. That is a thing which the law has always consistently refused to do. In cases of personal service, where a contract has been broken, no attempt has ever been made to do so, because it has clearly been shown to be no remedy to compel one person to employ another. Therefore in those cases monetary compensation is paid. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not be too proud to give some consideration to the Amendment which has been moved. I quite recognise that it goes rather deeply to the root of this Bill, but if we have been able to persuade him that there will be very great practical difficulties in making this Bill work, and in the general interests of industry and the employed men, I suggest we should confine ourselves to giving them financial compensation and not try to force them on an employer who does not wish to have them.

Mr. McCorquodale: I do not think that the last speaker really applied himself to what this Amendment and what this Clause contain. We are suggesting that two courses are open to the Reinstatement Committee, either an order requiring employment to be made available to the applicant or the payment of compensation. The object of the Amendment is to cancel the first course and provide only that compensation shall be paid. The mover of the Amendment seemed to assume that all employers who appeared on the one side of the Reinstatement Committee would be bad employers. I do not think that would be the case.

Sir I. Albery: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to say that. I specifically said there would be cases to decide between one employee and another. I said that an employer who is only able to give one man a job would require to go to the Committee to have a decision as between two or three applicants.

Mr. McCorquodale: By moving this Amendment the hon. Member prevents the Reinstatement Committee in cases where there is a good employer but where there is a dispute between one employee and another as to which has the right to go back, from making an order of reinstatement for one.

Sir A. Southby: Surely, in the case where there was such a dispute and the employer was a good employer no order need be made. He would take the man back.

Sir I. Albery: I suggest the hon. Member must have had his brief written before the Debate started. He has quite twisted what I said.

Mr. McCorquodate: I do not think that last observation is worthy of reply. I was endeavouring to deal with the points the hon. Member had raised. He said that men should not be directed back and should not be forced back to bad employers. This Bill does not force a man or direct a man in any way. This Clause merely provides that the Reinstatement Committee shall require employment to be made available. It does not order the man to take it if he does not wish to do so. The Amendment endeavours to remove what we regard as an essential part of this Bill, namely, that provision that the Reinstatement Committee can order the employer to make employment available for a man if it thinks fit, and if the employer refuses then to make it a criminal action—[Interruption]—a criminal offence. If that is removed half the object of the Bill goes. There is one other point I would like to submit to hon. Members. If the Reinstatement Committee is allowed to make only money awards that might lead a number of persons who are not really seeking employment at all but who think there might be a bit of money about to make frivolous applications to the Reinstatement Committee. But if such people know that the Committee can order that they be reinstated and that the only advantage they will have is to go back to work which they do not want


we hope that that will be a substantial safeguard against frivolous action by persons who are not really seeking employment. I cannot see why the hon. Member wishes to take away from these Reinstatement Committees the right to order reinstatement or compensation, whichever they think is more appropriate in the particular case. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Sir A. Southby: My hon. Friend's dosing remarks about provoking frivolous applications to the committees suggests that he has not got much of an opinion of the committees which will be set up. The committees might be expected to know whether the applications were frivolous or not, and if they thought they were frivolous they would not force the man upon the employer. This Bill is designed to deal with the bad employer or the bad workman. [Interruption.] If there is a dispute, the good employer will take the man back when the matter has been threshed out. The only time when the sanction will be applied is when a bad employer refuses to take a man back. It seems to me that to send a man back to a bad employer, knowing that he is not wanted, is not helping the man at all.

Sir I. Albery: Can my hon. Friend give us some indication as to what is intended? For instance, he said that the committees had two alternatives. In what kind of case does he think they will say to an employer who has refused to take a man back that he must take the man back, and in what kind of case will they say that he need not take the man back?

Mr. McCorquodale: That is a matter for the committees. It would be most inappropriate for me, without the facts before me, to attempt to dictate to them what they should do, one way or the other. It is a matter for the free and unfettered choice of the committees.

Sir R. Glyn: There is obviously a danger that a certain type of man will try to use these committees to get lump sum payments. I am sure, from what my hon. Friend said, that he thinks that a danger to be guarded against. The only protection in such a case is to put the man to work, because he is probably a work-shy, trying to get money in that

way. But is that safeguard sufficient? It may be impossible to find work of his kind, and he cannot be directed to anything else. Is it not a fact that while the matter is in dispute he cannot be found anything else?

Mr. McCorquodale: No; if work can be found the man can go to it.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I hope that the Minister will reject the Amendment, because I think it is based on a misunderstanding. It has been argued that this will compel the committee to send a workman back to a bad employer. That argument ignores the words in the Sub-section, which are:
having regard to the circumstances of the case.
The committee have to have regard to all the circumstances, and one of the circumstances would be that the employer and the workman could not work together satisfactorily. Therefore, they would not be compelled to send the workman back. They have the alternative, and it is open to them to take either or both courses. They can send the workman back and order the lump-sum payment, or they can leave him out of work and order the lump-sum payment. I have no doubt that the sort of case to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) was referring, where there are bad relations, is the sort of case in which the tribunal would adopt the latter alternative, and not send the man back. I hope, in these circumstances, that this Bill will be allowed to stay as it is.

Sir I. Albery: If the speech to which we have just listened had been made by the Parliamentary Secretary, it might have been helpful. We asked the Parliamentary Secretary to give some guidance as to how the powers will be used, and what were the reasons for the two alternatives, but he gave us none at all. If we may be assured that what the hon. and gallant Member has said will in fact be followed—[Interruption.] All I gathered from the Parliamentary Secretary was that they would follow it in their own way and we should possibly get a large variety of decisions all over the country. Personally, I am not going to accept my small share of the responsibility for passing this Clause as it is, and


I certainly do not intend to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney-General. It arises from the Debate on a previous Amendment. Will these conditions which apply to ordinary employers, namely, to reinstate and/or to provide compensation, apply to the Crown? The Attorney-General has told us that the Crown is not included in this Bill, but I see that the Minister has given an undertaking that those whose jobs previous to enlistment were with the Crown shall be favourably treated. What is the position in regard to this Clause in that respect?

The Attorney-General: I think the hon. Member is still saying that the Bill provides that employers must either give employment or provide compensation. The Bill provides nothing of the kind. It provides that he must take back a man if it is reasonable for him to do so. It is only if he fails in that primary duty that any question of paying compensation arises. The pledge which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave on Second Reading was:
The Government are prepared to accept obligations towards their former employees similar to those imposed on other employers under this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1944; col. 1447, Vol. 396.]
That means that the Government accept the obligation to take back or to find an alternative job within the framework wherever it is reasonable to do so.

Mr. Douglas: The point arising out of that speech is whether, in case the Crown refuses to take back a Crown servant, he will have the opportunity of going to the Reinstatement Committee to have the question decided, and, if he is not going to have that right, what remedy will he have?

The Attorney-General: The appropriate Department can be challenged by Question in Parliament.

Mr. G. Griffiths: That statement of the Attorney-General's does not seem to fit in very well with the statement he made to

me before we went for a cup of tea. He gave me the impression that the Government man is on an exactly equal footing with other employees. It was in respect of local authorities that I put a question to the Attorney-General. If the person was first employed by a local authority and the Crown took him over after a couple of years, or for a term exceeding a month, then the last employer is the Crown, and the Crown will be responsible for finding him work. If the Crown is responsible for finding him work and does not find him work, can he go to the Reinstatement Committee? My point is this. If the Crown does not find him work, is the Crown put on a level with local authorities or private employers? If not, there is something wrong with the Bill.

The Attorney-General: As I have said, it does not deal with the Crown. If there is a dispute with regard to a Crown servant the machinery of the reinstatement committees does not apply.

Mr. Bellenger: Why not?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tells me that they are considering suitable and adequate machinery for dealing with disputes should they arise. The reinstatement committees will be governed by statutory rules which do not apply to the Crown, because the Bill does not apply to the Crown. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend are considering what would be appropriate and satisfactory procedure and, no doubt, at a later stage they will be able to amplify what they propose.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Are we to understand that we are considering a matter which it is not necessary to insert in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: No.

Sir J. Lamb: Then I do not know who would administer such a Measure on the word of a member of the Front Bench however conscientiously given.

The Attorney-General: It has been made clear since the Second Reading, that the Bill does not apply to the Crown.

Sir J. Lamb: Are we to understand that an undertaking given on the Floor of the House is as important as a provision that is contained in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: No.

Sir J. Lamb: Then the man has security whatever.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that the Attorney-General will agree that the situation is unsatisfactory. The Crown is in a peculiar and particular position and I wonder whether it is possible for the Law Officers of the Crown to consider the position. It would appear to the public, which looks no further than it sees, that it is a strange thing that the Government are forcing the private employer to do something which they are unable or unwilling to do themselves. These things may possibly go wrong and I wonder whether the Attorney-General, with all the experience he has had in these matters, will consider this point between now and the Report stage and see whether something cannot be done to allay the general feeling of the Committee that the Crown should be brought into this matter in a very direct way within the powers that come under the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I cannot say that.

Mr. Douglas: Shall we have this statement before the proceedings on the Bill are completed?

The Attorney-General: I cannot say.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

PRIZE SALVAGE BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to great relief against exercise of right under s. 1 (2) of 2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 113.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Neil Maclean: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the rather peculiar situation which has arisen in connection with this Clause. During the Second Reading Debate I made certain comments upon the introduction of the Measure and the delay that had taken place following the procedure adopted in the English Bill, and I said that because of the lackadaisical manner in which the Scottish Law Officers of the Crown had endeavoured to follow in the footsteps of the English Law Officers considerable expense had been caused to the firm of Tritonia Limited, which is in my constituency. That expense was between £3,000 and £4,000. As Members will see, I have on the Order Paper an Amendment to Clause 4 in which I seek to make this Bill retrospective. My reason for speaking on this Clause is that it endeavours to put right in Scotland a situation which caused this firm to be taken into court and to pay so much money.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has an Amendment on the Order Paper which refers to Clause 4. This is Clause 2 and I was not quite sure whether he was not going through the arguments on his Amendment now.

Mr. Maclean: I am not endeavouring to go through the arguments on my Amendment, Mr. Williams. I am speaking on this Clause because it applies to this firm and because the Scottish Law Officers did not follow the English Law Officers in putting this particular safeguard into operation at the same time as it was put into operation by the English Bill. It is because of the delay that I am speaking on Clause 2. Clause 4 is the only Clause by means of which the Bill can be made retrospective. The Lord Advocate, in his speech on the Second Reading, said that the situation into which this firm was thrown could not have been foreseen. Well, it is peculiar that the circumstances actually were foreseen by the Law Officers in England. Lord Simon, in introducing the Bill in another place, definitely stated that the inclusion of the Clause was due to the fact that the Scottish law had not been


brought up to date and did not include safeguards that were in the English Act, and that affected this firm, which he specifically mentioned. We are trying to make the legal situation in Scotland the same as that in England.
But for the tardiness of the Law Officers the situation would never have arisen. Three amending Acts have been passed in England and it is now necessary, because of this case, to come forward with an amending Act for Scotland, which is like locking the stable door and finding not only that the interior of the stable has gone but that the door has gone also. The Lord Advocate ought to be perfectly fair to those who have been affected. They were taken into court by the Equity and Law Assurance Company because they had defaulted on one payment, owing to the fact that they had been asked to undertake certain contracts for the Government which necessitated getting new machinery. Because they were in default the insurance company came down like a horde of the worst type of moneylenders and tried to sell the machinery and the ground on which the factory was built. It is asking rather too much for a small firm to have to suffer such a monetary loss as it has suffered, and the Law Officers ought either to accept my Amendment later on or pass an indemnity Bill which will enable the company to recoup itself in some degree for the slackness, to say nothing more harsh, on the part of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. The Lord Advocate admitted on the Second Reading that nothing that Clause 3 is going to effect has ever happened in Scotland, so he has evidently learned his lesson and is taking foresight. He said it was not foreseeing what would happen that had necessitated Clause 2 being brought into the Bill. He is taking foresight that something that has not happened is not likely to happen or, if it does, will be protected by the third Clause. It is rather sad for this Tritonia firm that he did not take foresight earlier and save them a large sum of money which they badly need to-day. A grave hardship has been done to this firm and they should be recouped for the money they have lost and the hardship imposed upon them by this insurance company, who have treated them in a manner worse than Shylock was accused of treating the particular individual in the

play. Because of that, something ought to be done, either by an ex-gratia payment, or an indemnity Bill, or by the acceptance of my Amendment to make the Bill retrospective.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): Let me explain the matter as precisely as I can. For a long time it has been the custom to have separate Bills for Scotland and England. That custom necessarily means that it is the duty of those Ministers who act in Scottish affairs to consider, when an English Bill is promoted, whether to follow immediately and in terms, whether to do something different, or whether to wait. There would be no sense in having this system of separate Bills for the two countries if on every occasion when an English Bill is produced which is going to benefit somebody the Scottish authorities should necessarily follow suit there and then. The system would not make sense under those terms. The system means that we in Scotland have to consider our own problems and that we are not to follow necessarily in the wake of England on every occasion.

Mr. Maclean: I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In normal conditions such a method is acceptable and justifiable, but this is a war emergency law. During the period of the war the emergency should have been taken into consideration and there should have been no waiting on the part of the Law Officers in giving the same safeguards to firms doing war work in Scotland as were given to war factories in England.

The Lord Advocate: If it had been contemplated when the original Acts were passed in 1939 that an exactly similar course should be followed throughout the war in both countries, there was no sense in having two Acts in 1939 instead of one. If we have this system, which applies both to war Acts and to peace Acts, under which Scottish legislation to a large extent pursues its own course, then the Scottish Ministers must in every case consider, when their English colleagues propose a Bill, whether it is an appropriate Bill for Scotland now or at all, or whether they should do something different, or whether they should wait. The hon. Member suggests that Amendments to Bills always benefit everybody and never hurt anybody.


That is plainly not so in this connection. Let me give an example. The first Clause of this Bill, which is the most important Clause and a Clause of most general application, imposes a considerable burden—

The Deputy-Chairman: We really cannot go back to Clause I now. We have passed it.

The Lord Advocate: I am trying to point out that you cannot consider Clauses in isolation when considering whether to introduce a Bill. You must consider the thing as a whole.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is my point. We are not considering the introduction of the Bill. We are discussing Clauses in isolation.

The Lord Advocate: I am sorry if I offended and I must pass on. I did consider the whole question of including the corresponding Clause to this Clause in England—indeed I had to consider this matter on more than one occasion because there were three Amendments to the original English Act. I came to the conclusion that I had to weigh up the pros and cons, the likelihood of somebody being hurt if no action was taken and the certainty that a certain number of people would be troubled if action was taken. I tried to strike a balance. I think it was right to strike the balance in favour of delay, and not of immediate action, because immediate action would have troubled a large number of people. I may have been wrong in that—the hon. Member may think I was wrong—but I think I was right.

Mr. Maclean: According to Lord Simon the Minister was wrong.

The Lord Advocate: We cannot discuss what took place in another place. I cannot do more than inform the Committee what was done. I did consider and weigh all the pros. and cons. I weighed up considerations for and against according to the best of my ability and I came to the conclusion that delay was the proper course. Therefore the Bill was not introduced until it was deemed proper to do so. If I was wrong in reaching that decision I am sorry, but it cannot be helped. I have yet to be convinced that I was wrong. I do not want to go into details, but in fact in the action to which my hon. Friend referred there were three

parties only one of whom was affected by this point. Although I agree that this point would have been open to one party, it by no means follows that appeal to this particular provision would have brought success to that party. I cannot say more than that I did in fact consider and try to weigh up what was right and the hon. Member has not convinced me that I was wrong.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Construction and citation.)

Mr. N. Maclean: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after the second "Act" to insert "shall be retrospective."
I do so for the reason that I have already put before the Committee, and I must say quite definitely that the Lord Advocate was not fair to himself in the manner in which he has explained the matter. He said there were three parties to the action, but he must bear in mind that this particular Bill we are now discussing was brought before the House of Lords by Lord Simon for the specific purpose, he said, of safeguarding any future condition like that which led the Tritonia Company to take action in the Court of Session. So there is a division of legal opinion, Scottish opinion against English opinion, the Lord Chancellor's against that of the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate to-day is bringing into this Committee a Bill which was sponsored by the Lord Chancellor, whose speech states specifically—

The Deputy - Chairman: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Member that he is moving a very narrow Amendment, asking that the Bill should be made retrospective. He should not go into the whole history of the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: I can give reasons why it should be made retrospective, and they are fairly wide. The Lord Advocate said that he may have been wrong but did not think he was wrong; the facts that transpired proved that he was wrong. If he was not wrong the company would not have lost their money. The factory lost a court case, and this part of the Bill is trying to prevent it for the future. Surely that is the strongest argument against his statement that he did not think


he had been wrong. It was lack of foresight on his part, and to guard against that in the future the Bill has been brought forward. It is a safeguard in the future against any similar action. The words in the Bill are practically the words of the Lord Chancellor in another place. A firm is doing war work, engaged only in productive work for Government Departments; why should a money-lending firm, whether English or Scottish, come down on top of it, try to demand the last ounce of flesh and blood out of it, put that firm in a difficult position, advertise the factory for sale when there was an emergency order making it a criminal offence for that to be done without the permit of the Government Departments for which the factory was working? That is why Parliament should make the Bill retrospective. Whether it be a large firm or a small firm, it is not right that it should have to suffer from the oversight of any person in this House or elsewhere. The large firm particularly is more in need of money than any other and has the best right, I should think, to the protection of this House, against what has been done to it by this Equity and Law Life Assurance Society.

Mr. Tinker: It appears to me that there is some substance in the appeal made by my hon. Friend. I know that Parliament very seldom acts retrospectively, but we have had experience in other matters in which the House of Commons has made a mistake. It ought not to be beyond our power to say that we will put it right. According to the account given by my hon. Friend, there has been a grave mistake, and if it is admitted by the Government they ought to say that they are not too big to put the matter right. I feel inclined to go to a Division in support of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sloan: My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) has put up a very strong and reasonable case. Surely it is not outside the ability of the Lord Advocate to right a matter like this. My hon. Friend complains that it was the fault of the Lord Advocate, who had not the foresight of the English people to see that the Bill was passed in time to prevent the loss which has fallen on this firm. It is incomprehensible to me that the House of Commons is unable to rectify a small

matter like this. I do not think that the Lord Advocate will carry any weight at all if he merely reiterates that he cannot do anything in the matter. There ought to be some method of indemnifying people who have suffered fairly substantial loss. I feel strongly inclined to support my hon. Friend's Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: Let me try to explain what the position is under the Bill as it stands. If anyone tries again now after the Bill becomes law to take property of this particular firm or any other firm which is in similar circumstances, and indeed in any other circumstances covered by the Bill, of course, they cannot do it without going to the Court for permission, and permission will not be granted in the circumstances described in the original Act of 1939. I should gladly take any step that seemed practicable to meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), but frankly I do not see how this Amendment of his can work. Let me explain. For this one case there have probably been others under other Clauses of the Bill, many of them in which—I think I am in Order here in referring to the great bulk of cases which the Bill will affect so as to show what the retrospective change would mean—any person who has pursued his debtor under a post-war contract and has perhaps had to take steps to sell up property, has been entitled to do that up to now without going to the court for authority. He will now have to go to the court for authority before he can do that.
If I were to accept an Amendment like this it would seem to open up all these transactions which up to date have gone through quite legitimately and without anybody making any complaint, because I have had none. All these transactions would have to be opened up, because if you make this retrospective it means you must go now and get the authority of the court for those things you have already done but for which you did not need the authority of the court at the time. That is not a practicable proposition. It is not possible for people who have concluded business and sold up property to go to the court to authorise the thing after it has been done.
That seems to me what this Amendment means, and I cannot see how even in the case the hon. Member is dealing


with we can make the Bill retrospective. You cannot undo what has been done. You cannot reverse a decision which has been come to in another place. All you can do is to do something. I do not know what could be done to assist this firm. You cannot even give the firm back their property, because I understand their property was never taken away from them. They have had to pay a sum in legal expenses, it is true, but surely we cannot ask the successful party to whom it was owed to pay it back. I do not understand how by any Amendment of this Bill, certainly by this Amendment, we can put the matter right. I have tried to give my attention to the hon. Member's proposal. I see his point. I sympathise with it, but we cannot make the Bill retrospective to the extent of undoing something which has been done already and require the repayment of money which has been paid already to another private individual, and short of doing that I have been unable to find any practicable method of achieving the result which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Mathers: The Lord Advocate has some control over certain legal actions taken in Scotland. I do not know whether in the kind of action that was taken in respect of the case to which my hon. Friend has referred, and upon which he bases his case for making this Bill retrospective, the Lord Advocate could authorise action to be taken in the courts. Perhaps that happens only in criminal cases.

The Lord Advocate: indicated assent.

Mr. Mathers: That meets my point. If the action had come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Advocate, he could have withheld his permission, while he went through the processes necessary to put Scotland in the position which England has been in for some time in respect of matters of this kind.

Mr. Boothby: I do not want to make any complaint against my right hon. and learned Friend, but I do not think that anybody listening dispassionately to this Debate could help being convinced that a very serious injustice has been done to one company. If an injustice had not been done, I think it would not have been necessary to introduce this Bill at this particular moment.

Parliament is never willing to see injustice done if it can be avoided. I see my right hon. and learned Friend's objection to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). I see that it would be very difficult to make this Bill retrospective; but, without wishing to apportion any blame, I would beg my right hon. and learned Friend, in view of the fact that practically every Member is aware that an injustice has been done, to consider very seriously bringing in an indemnity Bill in respect of this company. I think this House would pass that Bill in five minutes, without a Division.

The Lord Advocate: Let there be no misunderstanding about this. Indemnity means that you absolve somebody from having to pay something. But these people have had to pay, and presumably have paid, something, not to the Government but to other private people. No indemnity can cure that; the only thing which can is a payment of money from somewhere to these people. I am bound to consider the expressions of opinion here to-day, and I shall most decidedly do so. I do not think that any Amendment of this Bill can put the matter right, but I am certainly ready to consider whether there is any other method of doing it. I cannot promise that I will find one—I have not see one yet—but I will consider all the suggestions which have been made. I should point out this to the Committee. If I had acted earlier and the House had been willing to accept the Bill, these people would have had some chance of establishing their point, which they did not have as it was, but a great many other people would have had to spend a great deal of money on legal processes which have never had to come before the courts at all, and I ask my hon. Friends to bear that in mind in making up their minds about this question. I will consider whether there is any feasible method, but it cannot be done by indemnity, because it is not a matter between the company and the Government.

Mr. Maclean: I am not making any harsher suggestion against the Government than that there has been an oversight on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown, but, as they are Crown servants, an indemnity should be given to those who have suffered because of their


oversight. That is my point and that is all I want. I am not accusing the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate of doing these things wilfully, but, through an oversight, one person in my constituency has suffered severe financial loss, and all I am asking from Parliament and the Government is that he shall be indemnified—I do not say in the Bill or in any other way—but at least that the Government shall see that he shall be indemnified for the loss to which he has been put through the oversight of the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: I will certainly undertake to consider that, but I cannot possibly give any promise, or, indeed, any indication that I can find a way out, because at the moment I cannot see one. I shall do my best, and perhaps my hon. Friend will consult with me to see if there is any possible way out. At the moment I do not see one.

Mr. Maclean: In view of that generous offer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

INDIA (WOMEN MINE-WORKERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Beechman.)

Mr. Sorensen: I am very sorry indeed to have to keep the House still longer. As a matter of fact, I am quite sorry for myself, because this is not the first time I have had to deal with matters at the fag end of a Session or a day. I am sorry, too, that a matter of such importance has to be brought forward right at the end of our proceedings, yet, as I had given notice to raise it, it is appropriate that we should go through with it now. During the war British workers have submitted to all kinds of restrictions, and they have done so because they recognise that it has been necessary for the prosecution of the war. I am equally certain that, had there been a suggestion that women should submit to the imposition or hardship and danger, such as that which is now being

imposed upon certain Indian women, there would have been a very vigorous outcry against it. Yet, at the same time, we have to recognise that, if coal is required, whether here or in India, and if there is a shortage in production, measures have to be taken to meet that need.
In this country, owing to a shortage of production, the interesting innovation of a ballot has been established, and, as a result, numbers of young men have been selected in that chance fashion to work down the mines. In that connection, if there had been an indication that the same principles should be applied to their mothers or wives, I am quite certain it would have been viewed as an act of great retrogression, for there was a time when women in this country worked in the mines, but as we well know, that has long since gone by. A return to it even under the stress and duress of war, would for many of us be a price we would not sanction. In India, they are paying that price, and the Geneva Labour Convention dealing with the employment of women has been waived or suspended. I do not know exactly how many women are now being employed although I have seen it stated that there are 40,000 now employed in or on the mines of India. It is quite true that, only as recently as 1937, the principle of employing women in mines was abolished, and at that time, I believe, there were some 75,000 or 76,000 women so employed. That, I think, is a great reflection on us—that we did not abolish female labour in or on mines before.
It has to be proven whether this particular method of meeting the admitted deficiency is the right one to adopt. When I asked a Question on this matter I was told by the Secretary of State for India that
owing to the serious shortage of coal production to meet the urgent needs of the war effort the Government of India have reluctantly, and as a purely temporary measure, suspended the prohibition, in force since 1937, of work by women in the coal mines of three provinces …
He went on to say:
The difficulty has been that the miners"—
the male miners—
tended to go away because in other employments their wives are allowed to accompany them and work with them. It is because wives have not been allowed to work in the coalmines that the miners themselves have drifted away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1944; cols. 351 and 352, Vol. 396.]


That apparently is the excuse put forward, but I do not think it is a valid reason at all to recruit women for the mines in India again. These women are not going back to the mines merely to give comfort and sustenance to their menfolk, but for pay. Perhaps that may suggest an alternative that might have been pursued with greater vigour than apparently has been the case. The payment of the male miners in India is certainly lamentably low. There has been a 50 per cent. increase, but it still remains lamentably low.
Before any women are recruited for the mines in India, everything should be done to see that the men who are working there are retained by making it worth their while. Out of a great reservoir of perhaps 210,000,000 or 212,000,000 males, many would work in the mines if it was made worth their while. When I asked a Question regarding the pay of miners I was informed that for a 10-hour shift the pay of male miners ranged in English equivalent from the highest, which was about 2s. 4d. per day, to the lowest, which was about 9½d. per day. I saw in the Press that the monthly average wages for a coal miner in India were round about 21s. per month. Whatever figures we take, they are terrible in their significance. Allowing for differences in standards of life and all other factors, it still remains that 9½d. per day, or 1d. an hour, as a reward for arduous labour is utterly and completely inadequate.
I therefore submit that until we had made wages substantially higher and had exhausted every means of applying better conditions and rewards for attracting men to the mines, or keeping existing miners there we ought not to have considered the reintroduction of female labour. It may be said that women may not work unless they choose and that they are not compelled to do so. But even if the women wanted to go to the mines it is likely they wanted to do so because in that way they could add a little more to their very poor income. When the men folk get only a penny an hour, or even 2d. or 3d. an hour, any possibility of their women folk earning a little more is a great inducement. I believe this to be a very retrograde step and I am not surprised that the Indian Trades Union Congress has condemned it in no uncertain terms. I am equally

sorry that no consultation took place with the British Trades Union Congress, on the one hand, or with the Indian Trades Union Congress on the other. It does not say much for our assurance of the ultimate fulfilment of Indian aspirations and of our grant of self-government.
First of all, at the beginning of the war, there was no consultation regarding the war with prominent Indian personalities, and in a matter like this we have taken no action to consult the accredited industrial representatives of the Indian people. The All-India Trades Union Congress says:
The step is a retrograde one in principle, uncalled for by the circumstances, not calculated even to achieve the object aimed at, and involving a breach of international agreement.
I am not surprised that a lady, Mrs. Renuka Ray, in the Legislative Assembly, moved the Adjournment of the House as a protest against this step. True, her Motion was defeated by 41 to 23 votes, though I would like to know exactly what was the composition of the 41 who were in the majority. Time slips by too rapidly and I want, if possible, time for others to say a word, but may I add that I hope the Government of India and the British Government, in conjunction, will take steps to review this matter and to see that other steps are taken than those which have been taken, I am afraid rather too lightly and too superficially, to meet the possible need in India at the present time.
Looking up figures I find that at the present time there are some 357,600 male miners in India. That represents a very substantial increase on the number of male miners in the census of 1931, when the figure was 297,621, including those working in mica and salt mines as well as in coalmines. There has been an increase in that period, therefore, which means that men are prepared to work in the mines, and if it is true that better wages are being paid in certain industries and that men are attracted to those because of higher reward, then surely something can be done to counteract that influence by substantially increasing the wages of the miners themselves.
Meanwhile, I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply—may I say in passing that I very much regret the cause of the absence of the Secretary of State for India and I trust he will speedily recover—that he will give


some assurance that everything is being done to see these women get proper treatment. To me it is not enough to be told that they are getting the same wages as men—those are miserable enough in all conscience—but men and women are not the same, in spite of the ultra-feminism that may exist among some of my friends. No one would suggest, surely, that in physical respects, at least, men and women are the same. That being so I entirely endorse the decision of the Indian Trades Union Congress. Meanwhile, are the rather general assurances regarding the conditions of the women genuine? I am told that they are not to work in less than six-foot galleries. Is that certain? Is any inspection being carried out in that how many are working underground? I have asked whether children are taken into respect? I am told that many are working on the surface. That may be, but how many are working underground? I have asked whether children are taken into the mines, infants in arms, or others, but I have had no satisfactory reply. I would like to know what is being done with the children; are they being enticed to work in the mines as well? I want to know what hygienic precautions and facilities are being provided, and, above all, what compensation is likely to be paid to these women who may be injured in the mines.
These are some of the considerations which I bring to the attention of the House and I will conclude by saying that this matter, which may seem remote from our general deliberations, is concerned with men and women—women in particular—thousands of miles away. Nevertheless, they are our responsibility. One day, when India has her own complete self-government, it will be her responsibility whether she employs women in the mines of India or not. Meanwhile, it is our responsibility. There is more than a germ of justification in my plea that if we are not prepared for our own women to be taken into the mines, then we should consider the women of India on the same level and appreciate them from the same standpoint, and recognise that just as we are now glad that women are not employed in this arduous and dangerous task, so also, if it is not a scandal, it is certainly a shame that women are being employed in the mines of India at present. We shall never carry out a successful war in the East by relying upon the employment of

20,000, 30,000, or 40,000 Indian women in the mines of India.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: I desire to intervene in this Debate only for a few minutes to say, first of all, that according to Western standards the idea of women working in the mines is extremely unattractive. But we have to face the fact that the view-point in the East is not, of necessity, quite the same as that in the West. I think the hon. Member who raised this Debate would be ill-advised to criticise overmuch what is purely a temporary war expedient when, at the moment he does it, he is criticising, by implication, our great Ally the Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia.

Mr. Sorensen: I do not care.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: The hon. Member says he does not care, and I am sure he does not.

Mr. Sorensen: Russia is not sacrosanct.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: I am delighted to learn from those benches that Russia is not sacrosanct.

Dr. Morgan: But their compensation is much better.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: That is not quite the point. The main point which has been raised—and which is a perfectly proper one to raise—is that women are unfitted and unsuited to work in the mines.

Mr. Sloan: Does the hon. and gallant Member think they are?

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: My own personal view, as a Westerner, is against it, but we do not wish, by overstressing this temporary war expedient, to give any feeling that our great Eastern Ally, who is far nearer to India than we are, should feel that possibly not every effort was being made to do as much as she is doing at this moment in the great struggle against the common enemy. The House will probably be aware of the rather curious fact that only last month the "Soviet War News Weekly" took the opportunity of not only referring to the fact that in Russian mines women were working as hewers but were glorying in that work. I bring that forward to show the rather different point of view of the


East from the standards we have in the West. I would like to quote what that paper said on 11th January:
Among recent arrivals at the Donbas mines are a number of girl hewers who are working at the coal face and who have reached high output levels. The best of them recently did six times her quota, while two other girls doubled or trebled their quotas. They have started Socialist emulation.
It is interesting to know that at the moment these girls are not only able, but are apparently anxious, in time of danger to help their country in that form of work. I understand that in Indian mines women are not being used as hewers; they are being used only in the six foot galleries to do very much the same sort of work they would be doing if they were working on the surface. Although I hope what is being done at present will be a purely temporary war-time measure I think it is possible to make too much of a song and dance about it.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I hope I may be able to leave a few moments so that hon. Members opposite may have a chance to speak but I think it is important that I should answer the points raised by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). I am speaking in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India who, I am glad to say, is making very good progress and will, I hope, be with us again before very long. The hon. Member for West Leyton raised certain points with my right hon. Friend on 20th January with regard to this very important question and the first point I would make in reply is that it would, naturally, be the desire of all of us to see this practice discontinued if circumstances were normal. The whole development of policy in India has been towards the gradual elimination of the use of female labour underground and the India Mines Act of 1923 gave powers to achieve this.
In 1929 these powers were used to prohibit the employment of women underground in all mines except those in Bihar, Bengal and the Central Provinces. In these exempted mines at that time the process of elimination was destined to take a little longer, and it was hoped to dispense with the use of all women underground by 1939. When I was Under-Secretary for some five years at the India

Office that process was actually speeded up, and it was possible to say that by 1937 the employment of women underground in the exempted mines, as well as other mines, was prohibited.
So that that was the definite policy, and it was carrying out nearly 100 years later than Lord Ashley's Act in England what we had hoped to achieve, namely, a most desirable reform, the elimination altogether of the use of women underground. Therefore it naturally was a source of regret to those engaged in administration, as well as to all who consider these matters, that circumstances in India, especially in the latter part of 1943, made it necessary for women to be employed again in certain tasks underground. There was a definite fall in production—in the latter part of 1943 it was particularly severe—and at the same time there were increasing demands for coal, exactly the same as in this country. This was due to a variety of causes. The men found it difficult to be in the mines at the time when they wanted to be beside their families when food was scarce. Conditions in India are totally different from what they are here. Many of the miners are agriculturists as well, and in some parts the employment is seasonal. There was a tendency for the men to go back to their villages at these difficult times and for there to be less labour available for the mines. There were outbreaks of malaria, which also took its toll of the labour supply. Men were tending to take on constructional work under the military authorities, which was well paid and was open to the attraction that husbands and wives could work together. This human reason is very important in India, particularly with those who work in the mines in the districts to which I have been referring.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are over 2,000,000 men in the Indian Army who certainly do not take their wives with them?

Mr. Butler: It so happens that those who come from the tribes who work in these mines are particularly anxious to take their wives with them. Though my whole argument does not rest on that, it has been mentioned by the Labour Member in India that husbands like to have their wives with them when they go underground. In order to face the serious danger of shortage of coal for factories,


railways and other branches of the war effort, the Government of India had to take special measures. Those measures relate not only to getting more male labourers to go into the mines but they have also resulted in permission for wives to accompany their husbands. There is no element of compulsion, and it would be wrong for the impression to get abroad in the House that there is in this any element of compulsion, direction or regimentation. Conditions in that respect in India are as different from those here as are some of the conditions of those working in the mines.
Coming to the long-term policy, the Government of India have already announced that they are taking steps to recruit some 10,000 male labourers, particularly for the Bihar and Bengal coalfields. I am informed that 2,000 will shortly be at work. Wages have been increased to balance, as far as possible, the rival attractions of higher wages outside. They have been increased already by some 50 per cent. above pre-war rates.
The payment of attendance bonuses has also been resorted to, but besides this there are several other measures. Transport facilities are being improved between the villages and the mining areas in order that men may come in more easily after being engaged on part-time agriculture. Grain concessions have been made to mining districts, and welfare, educational and other facilities have been introduced to make the work more attractive. The result is that on the male side the Government of India are taking steps which have borne fruit and resulted in more men being at work. The other step the Government of India have been obliged to take is to permit women to go down the mines. If the House is doubtful about the effect of such a measure, I would point out that the result of the re-employment of women to a limited extent in Messrs. Tata's collieries has been an increase of production of 14 per cent. If we are critical of women being employed underground, we should give the Government of India the credit that it has had a definite effect in certain mines.
The House will be relieved to hear that this measure is a temporary one, and was so described in the public announcement. It is proposed to review the position in six months' time. There is no question of

compulsion. The conditions in India are very different from those which we have in this country. The conditions of the employment of women are that they must be paid the same rates as men, that the galleries must be of suitable height, and that women should draw the same rations as men. As regards welfare arrangements, under the Mines Maternity Benefit Act, 1941, governing the employment of expectant mothers, the owners, during the absence of these women from mines, are obliged to pay them eight annas a day. The hon. Member referred to the employment of children. There is an absolute prohibition on children under 15 years of age being employed underground, and over that age up to 17 a certificate of fitness has to be produced. With regard to compensation, I have here the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which I have been examining, and if the hon. Member has any particular points to put to me I shall be glad to give him full particulars. The provisions of this Act on compensation should cover most of his anxieties.
The hon. Member raised one or two other points, but I think I have endeavoured in the short time at my disposal to give him answers to most of the anxieties he expressed. He will see that this is a situation different from what we have here. It is a situation which the Government of India are attempting to meet in a variety of ways, both by the provision of extra male labour, and by making the situation for the women as good as they can make it. I have shown that the women have done a service in what they have undertaken for the war effort in India, and I trust the House will agree that the Labour Member in India summed it up well when he said that the field of recruitment of labour for work in the mines was already rigorously limited, and that, in short, if you want to get the miners to work it is also necessary to provide work for their wives.

Mr. Sloan: It is a tragic circumstance that 100 years after we abolished women labour in the mines in this country we should have to discuss the employment of women in the mines of India. I am not at all impressed by the statement of my right hon. Friend because with 350,000 male miners, if they were usefully employed and had proper


technicians and machinery, they could tremendously augment the coal supply in India. I understand that the coal output of India is less than 55,000,000 tons annually, and if that is so, there is something radically wrong with the management of the mines in India. Take the infant death rate in India. We had a report from Scotland the other day, which showed that it has, with one or two exceptions, the worst infant death rate in Europe, but the infant death rate of India is something horrible.

Dr. Morgan: It is 331 per thousand.

Mr. Sloan: I cannot understand how any improvement can be effected by the introduction of women into the mines, and the protections mentioned by my right hon. Friend are no protection at all. The women must work in a six-foot gallery—but they can still be employed on work that is not suitable for them. As a matter of fact, no work of any kind in the mine

is suitable for any woman, despite what was said by the hon. and gallant Member opposite about our Soviet Allies. I am under the impression that he really wanted to make an anti-Soviet speech. Can we really reconcile ourselves to this unfortunate set of circumstances? If the Indian people had control of their country, I am sure that, with their long culture, the last thing that they would ever imagine would be to permit women to go to work in the pits. I think the thing is so utterly contemptible and horrible that the strongest possible protest should be made in this House.

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.